4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Algorithm for reconstruction after endoscopic pituitary and skull base surgery

期刊

LARYNGOSCOPE
卷 117, 期 7, 页码 1133-1137

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1097/MLG.0b013e31805c08c5

关键词

cerebrospinal fluid leak; reconstruction; endoscopic; skull base; surgery; pituitary

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: The expanding role of endoscopic skull base surgery necessitates a thorough understanding of the indications, techniques, and limitations of the various approaches to reconstruction. The technique and outcomes of endoscopic skull base reconstruction remain incompletely described in the literature. Study Design and Methods: Patients undergoing endoscopic skull base surgery underwent an algorithmic approach to reconstruction based on tumor location, defect size, and presence of intraoperative cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak. A prospective database was reviewed to determine the overall efficacy of reconstruction and to identify risk factors for postoperative CSF leak. Results: The diagnosis in the 127 patients in this series included pituitary tumor in 70 (55%) patients, encephalocele in 16 (12.6%) patients, meningioma in 11 (8.7%) patients, craniopharyngioma in 9 (7.1%) patients, and chordoma in 6 (4.7%) patients. Successful reconstruction was initially achieved in 91.3% of patients. Eleven (8.7%) patients experienced postoperative CSF leak, 10 of which resolved with lumbar drainage alone. One (0.8%) patient required revision surgery. Correlation between postoperative CSF leak and study variables revealed a statistically significant longer duration of surgery (243 vs. 178 min, P=.008) and hospitalization (12.1 vs. 4.5 days, P<.0001) and a trend toward larger tumors (mean, 3.2 vs. 2.3 cm; P=.058) in patients experiencing postoperative CSF leak. Conclusions: The algorithm for reconstruction after endoscopic surgery presented in this study is associated with excellent overall efficacy. A greater understanding of risk factors for postoperative CSF leak is imperative to achieve optimal results.

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