4.3 Article

Surgical Strategy for Cerebrospinal Fluid Rhinorrhea Repair

期刊

NEUROSURGERY
卷 66, 期 6, 页码 ONS281-ONS285

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1227/01.NEU.0000369660.30126.02

关键词

Cerebrospinal fluid; Repair strategy; Rhinorrhea; Surgery

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE: Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) rhinorrhea is leakage of CSF from the nasal cavity caused by cranial base or meningeal defects. Surgical treatment of CSF rhinorrhea is still problematic. We evaluated the clinical outcomes of 132 consecutive cases of CSF rhinorrhea treated via transcranial or transnasal endoscopic approaches according to the patient's condition. The indications for the approaches are discussed. METHODS: Of 132 patients with CSF rhinorrhea, a transnasal endoscopic approach was used in 98 to repair cranial base defects in the ethmoid and sphenoid sinuses. A transcranial intradural approach was used in the remaining 34 patients for frontal sinus defects, multiple fractures of the cranial base, or combination nerve injury. RESULTS: CSF rhinorrhea resolved after initial surgery in 124 of 132 patients, giving a success rate of 94%. Of the 8 failures or recurrent cases, 4 were successfully repaired by repeat endoscopic surgery, 2 were cured by transcranial revision surgery, and 2 refused additional surgery (the condition subsequently resolved without treatment in these patients). Postoperative complications included intracranial infection (8 patients) and anosmia (1 patient). No neurological deficits were apparent over the 10-month mean follow-up period. CONCLUSION: Transnasal endoscopic repair is a reliable method for CSF rhinorrhea patients whose fistulae are located in the ethmoid and sphenoid sinuses. The transcranial procedure should be the treatment of choice for patients with frontal sinus fracture, multiple or complex anterior cranial base fractures, or nerve injury. A satisfactory surgical outcome depends on exact diagnosis, proper operative approach, and the surgeon's skill and experience.

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

4.3
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