4.5 Article

Minimizing Morbidity in Endoscopic Pituitary Surgery: Outcomes of the Novel Nasoseptal Rescue Flap Technique

期刊

OTOLARYNGOLOGY-HEAD AND NECK SURGERY
卷 147, 期 3, 页码 434-437

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0194599812443042

关键词

skull base; endoscopic surgery; reconstruction; nasoseptal rescue flap; endoscopic surgery; pituitary surgery; Rathke cleft cyst

资金

  1. Doris Duke Charitable Foundation
  2. UNC MD/PhD program [T32 GM008719]
  3. National Institute of Mental Health [F30 MH074266]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. The novel nasoseptal rescue flap has been proven to provide complete coverage of dural defects that may be encountered during endoscopic pituitary surgery through cadaveric studies. In this case series, the authors report outcomes from the first cohort of patients who had a nasoseptal rescue flap raised prior to surgery. Study Design. Case series with chart review. Setting. University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. Subjects and Methods. Patients requiring nasoseptal rescue flaps were identified from the senior author's database. Results. Nasoseptal rescue flaps were harvested in 26 consecutive patients, with only 7 (27%) patients actually requiring use of the rescue flap for skull base reconstruction due to intraoperative cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak. Six patients had low-flow CSF leaks, whereas 1 patient had a high-flow CSF leak. Nineteen patients had pituitary adenomas, whereas 7 patients had Rathke cleft cyst. Mean follow-up time was 6 months (range, 1-16 months). Since surgery, no patients have presented with CSF leak or septal perforation. The success rate in those 7 patients with rescue flap utilization was 100%. Conclusion. The nasoseptal rescue flap is an effective surgical technique for patients undergoing pituitary surgery without a planned nasoseptal flap. It allows for vascularized skull base reconstruction if an intraoperative CSF leak is encountered and minimizes donor site morbidity if a leak is not encountered.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据