Complication Risk in Ventral Skull Base Surgery Based on Preoperative Hematocrit

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liam S. Flanagan ◽  
Chris B. Choi ◽  
Mehdi S. Lemdani ◽  
Aakash Shah ◽  
Aksha Parray ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
Peter A. Benedict ◽  
Joseph R. Connors ◽  
Micah R. Timen ◽  
Nupur Bhatt ◽  
Richard Lebowitz ◽  
...  

Objective: Diagnosis of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leaks is sometimes challenging in the postoperative period following pituitary and ventral skull base surgery. Intrathecal fluorescein (ITF) may be useful in this setting. Design: Retrospective chart review Setting: Tertiary care center Methods and Participants: All patients who underwent pituitary and ventral skull base surgery performed by a single rhinologist between January 2017–March 2020 were included. There were 103 patients identified. Eighteen patients received 20 ITF injections due to clinical suspicion for CSF leak during the postoperative period without florid CSF rhinorrhea on clinical exam. Computed tomography scans with new or increasing intracranial air and intra-operative findings were used to confirm CSF leaks. Clinical courses were reviewed for at least 6 months after initial concern for leak as the final determinate of CSF leak. Main Outcome Measures: Specificity and safety of ITF Results: Eleven (61%) ITF patients were female and 7 (39%) were male. Average patient age was 52.50±11.89. There were 6 patients with confirmed postoperative CSF leaks, 3 of whom had evaluations with ITF. ITF use resulted in 2 true positives, 1 false negative, 17 true negatives and 0 false positives. ITF sensitivity was 67%, specificity was 100%, and positive and negative predictive values were 100% and 94.4%, respectively. There were no adverse effects from ITF use. Conclusions: Existing modalities for detecting postoperative CSF leaks suffer from suboptimal sensitivity and specificity, delayed result reporting, or limited availability. Intrathecal fluorescein represents a specific and safe test with potential utility in the postoperative setting.


2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 186-189 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zachary S. Mendelson ◽  
Kristen A. Echanique ◽  
Meghan M. Crippen ◽  
Alejandro Vazquez ◽  
James K. Liu ◽  
...  

Purpose Immediate postoperative imaging is frequently obtained after combined skull base surgery (SBS) with endoscopic endonasal and open transcranial approaches. The importance of early postoperative imaging for detecting complications in these patients is still debatable. In this study, we investigated the clinical utility of early postoperative imaging after combined SBS for determination of postoperative complications. Methods A retrospective chart analysis of 21 cases of combined SBS between 2009 and 2015 was performed. Data on postoperative computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MR), and the hospital course were collected. We separated interpretations of postoperative imaging into two groups: (1) when using the radiologist's interpretation alone, and (2) when using the surgeon's knowledge of the case in conjunction with imaging. Results Forty-two postoperative scans were obtained (21 CT, 21 MR) within 48 hours of surgery. There was a significant statistical difference between imaging interpretation by surgeons and radiologists for CT interpretation only. For CT interpretation the true positive (TP), false positive (FP), true negative (TN), and false negative (FN) rates for radiologists (TP, 0/21; FP, 6/21; TN, 11/21; FN, 4/21) slightly deviated from surgeons' interpretation (TP, 1/21 [p = 0.9999]; FP, 0/21 [p = 0.0207]; TN, 17/21 [p = 0.1000]; FN, 3/21 [p = 1.000]). Rates for MRI interpretation by both groups were nearly identical, with no significant difference found. Overall, four patients experienced seven postoperative complications, which led to a complication rate of 19.0% (4/21). The patients exhibited clinical symptoms in all instances of postoperative complications that required further intervention. Conclusion The benefit of early postoperative imaging to detect complications after combined SBS was limited. In this cohort of patients, positive imaging findings' effects on patient management were dictated by the presence of supporting clinical symptoms.


2012 ◽  
Vol 32 (Suppl1) ◽  
pp. E3 ◽  
Author(s):  
James K. Liu ◽  
Jean Anderson Eloy

Anterior skull base (ASB) schwannomas are extremely rare and can often mimic other pathologies involving the ASB such as olfactory groove meningiomas, hemangiopericytomas, esthesioneuroblastomas, and other malignant ASB tumors. The mainstay of treatment for these lesions is gross-total resection. Traditionally, resection for tumors in this location is performed through a bifrontal transbasal approach that can involve some degree of brain retraction or manipulation for tumor exposure. With the recent advances in endoscopic skull base surgery, various ASB tumors can be resected successfully using an expanded endoscopic endonasal transcribriform approach through a “keyhole craniectomy” in the ventral skull base. This approach represents the most direct route to the anterior cranial base without any brain retraction. Tumor involving the paranasal sinuses, medial orbits, and cribriform plate can be readily resected. In this video atlas report, the authors demonstrate their step-by-step techniques for resection of an ASB olfactory schwannoma using a purely endoscopic endonasal transcribriform approach. They describe and illustrate the operative nuances and surgical pearls to safely and efficiently perform the approach, tumor resection, and multilayered reconstruction of the cranial base defect. The video can be found here: http://youtu.be/NLtOGfKWC6U.


2014 ◽  
Vol 125 (5) ◽  
pp. 1072-1076 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucia Diaz ◽  
Leila J. Mady ◽  
Zachary S. Mendelson ◽  
James K. Liu ◽  
Jean Anderson Eloy

QJM ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 113 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
A S Montaser ◽  
M S Ismail ◽  
O Y Hammad ◽  
Z Y Fayed ◽  
D M Prevedello

Abstract Introduction In the last two decades, Endoscopic endonasal approaches (EEAs) have undergone a significant evolution with a major shift from a transsellar approach to a variety of approaches that can directly access the midline and paramedian ventral skull base. Once the technical feasibility of any surgical approach is established; its safety (assessed through complications), and treatment outcomes (assessed through long-term follow-up) should be addressed. Aim of the Study To assess the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of EEA as a minimally invasive approach to ventral skull base lesions. Methodology and Materials this is a prospective observational study of group of 30 patients with ventral skull base lesions that were managed via endoscopic endonasal approaches. All patients’ clinical data, radiographic evaluations, procedural detail, complications, and follow-up data were recorded and analyzed. Results The mean age of patients was 50.8 years (range: 18-74 years), with a male:female ration of 1:1.72. The most commonly encountered pathological entities in the cohort was meningiomas (43.3%), pituitary adenomas (23.3%). and craniopharyngiomas (13.3%). Postoperative CSF leak was observed in 6.6% of cases and was managed successfully. There were no cases with postoperative infection in the cohort. Other procedure-related complications include transient diabetes insipidus (10%), pneumocephaly (3.3%), Syndrome of inappropriate ADH secretion (3.3%). Gross total resection was achieved in 93.3% of cases. Improvement of preoperative symptoms was recorded in 89.2% of cases. The mean follow-up duration was 17.8 ± 2.7 months. Conclusion EEAs provide direct access and better visualization to the ventral skull base without brain retraction and with minimal neurovascular manipulation, leading to less morbidity and mortality. EEA can be considered a feasible, safe, and effective tool on the armamentarium of skull base surgery. EEAs should not be considered as a replacement to the traditional transcranial approaches; rather. EEAs are deemed as a complementary route and a potential alternative to conventional skull base surgery in select cases.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Gardner ◽  
Carl Snyderman ◽  
Brian Jankowitz

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document