Postoperative otorhinolaryngologic complications in transnasal endoscopic surgery to access the skull base

Dolci, Ricardo Landini Lutaif; Miyake, Marcel M.; Tateno, Daniela Akemi; Cançado, Natália Amaral; Campos, Carlos Augusto Correia de; Santos, Américo Rubens Leite dos; Lazarini, Paulo Roberto

doi:10.1016/j.bjorl.2016.04.020

Cited by 48 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 38 publications

(53 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Dolci et al found that 10 of 41 patients had signs of hyposmia or anosmia after ESBS . However, no preoperative scores or statistical comparisons were taken, some patients had olfactory groove tumors, and follow‐up time was variable.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Dolci et al found that 10 of 41 patients had signs of hyposmia or anosmia after ESBS. 29 However, no preoperative scores or statistical comparisons were taken, some patients had olfactory groove tumors, and follow-up time was variable. Tajudeen et al focused exclusively on the feasibility of smell preservation after endoscopic unilateral resection of esthesioneuroblastoma, and showed that eight out of 14 patients were able to preserve some olfaction on UPSIT testing after surgery.…”

Section: Qualitative Summarymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Olfactory outcomes after endoscopic skull base surgery: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Determine the effect of endoscopic skull base surgery (ESBS) on long‐term olfactory outcomes after surgery. Methods An English‐language search was conducted using the Cochrane, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Embase databases from January 2000 to October 2017 for adult patients undergoing ESBS with subjective and objective olfaction outcomes. Two authors independently examined articles to identify those meeting inclusion criteria. Studies examining objective olfactory outcomes after ESBS were included in the meta‐analysis. A random‐effects meta‐analysis of patients undergoing sellar and parasellar ESBS was conducted to compare preoperative and postoperative olfactory outcomes using the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) and Cross‐Cultural Smell Identification Test (CCSIT). Results Among 339 eligible articles, 29 articles met inclusion criteria. Twenty‐five of these focused on sellar and parasellar tumors. Individual articles not meeting criteria for meta‐analysis were qualitatively reported. Meta‐analysis showed there was no difference in preoperative and postoperative olfactory function after sellar and parasellar ESBS based on the UPSIT (five studies, mean difference [MD] = −1.03; 95% CI: −3.98, 1.93; P = .50) and the CCIST (three studies, MD = −0.77; 95% CI: −3.03, 1.49; P = .50). A pooled overall meta‐analysis revealed similar results (eight studies, effect size = −0.30; 95% CI: −0.79, 0.18; P = .22). However, heterogeneity for all meta‐analyses was high (I2 > 95%, P < .01), suggesting significant variation in the included studies. Conclusions Based on published objective olfaction outcomes after sellar and parasellar ESBS, there was no significant difference between preoperative and postoperative olfaction. Further prospective studies using validated objective measures of olfaction are required to improve our understanding on this subject. Level of Evidence 2a Laryngoscope, 129:1998–2007, 2019

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Qualitative Summarymentioning

confidence: 99%

Olfactory outcomes after endoscopic skull base surgery: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Cheng et al . had only 1 (0.8%) septal perforation in a cohort of 129 patients who underwent endoscopic transnasal transsphenoidal surgery, whereas Dolci et al . reported internal nasal valve collapse in 6 (14.6%) patients and no septal perforations in a cohort of 41 endoscopic transnasal transsphenoidal surgery patients.…”

Section: Complicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

ICAR: endoscopic skull‐base surgery

Wang

Zanation

Gardner

et al. 2019

Int Forum Allergy Rhinol

151

279

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Endoscopic skull‐base surgery (ESBS) is employed in the management of diverse skull‐base pathologies. Paralleling the increased utilization of ESBS, the literature in this field has expanded rapidly. However, the rarity of these diseases, the inherent challenges of surgical studies, and the continued learning curve in ESBS have resulted in significant variability in the quality of the literature. To consolidate and critically appraise the available literature, experts in skull‐base surgery have produced the International Consensus Statement on Endoscopic Skull‐Base Surgery (ICAR:ESBS). Methods Using previously described methodology, topics spanning the breadth of ESBS were identified and assigned a literature review, evidence‐based review or evidence‐based review with recommendations format. Subsequently, each topic was written and then reviewed by skull‐base surgeons in both neurosurgery and otolaryngology. Following this iterative review process, the ICAR:ESBS document was synthesized and reviewed by all authors for consensus. Results The ICAR:ESBS document addresses the role of ESBS in primary cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) rhinorrhea, intradural tumors, benign skull‐base and orbital pathology, sinonasal malignancies, and clival lesions. Additionally, specific challenges in ESBS including endoscopic reconstruction and complication management were evaluated. Conclusion A critical review of the literature in ESBS demonstrates at least the equivalency of ESBS with alternative approaches in pathologies such as CSF rhinorrhea and pituitary adenoma as well as improved reconstructive techniques in reducing CSF leaks. Evidence‐based recommendations are limited in other pathologies and these significant knowledge gaps call upon the skull‐base community to embrace these opportunities and collaboratively address these shortcomings.

show abstract

“…Unauthorized distribution is strictly prohibited. Conger et al 33 2018 509 5 (83) 2 (33) 3 (43) 4 (17) 14 (33) Dehdashti et al 34 2016 180 4 (67) 1 (17) 3 (43) 6 (25) 14 (33) Dolci et al 35 This document was downloaded for personal use only. Unauthorized distribution is strictly prohibited.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Heterogeneity in Outcome Reporting in Endoscopic Endonasal Skull Base Reconstruction: A Systematic Review

Dorismond

Santarelli

Thorp

et al. 2020

J Neurol Surg B Skull Base

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Presently, there are no standards for reporting outcomes of endoscopic endonasal skull base reconstruction (ESBR). This is problematic as a lack of consistent reporting makes synthesizing findings in systematic reviews and meta-analysis challenging. Thus, the aim of this study was to systematically review and describe the patterns of reporting outcomes in ESBR as a foundation for developing reporting guidelines. Study Design Present study is a systematic review. Methods Embase, PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched for all publications with ≥25 patients and a focus on ESBR. The reporting patterns of each study's variables and outcomes were assessed. Results A total of 112 studies were included in the review. The most commonly reported demographic variables were the number of included patients (n = 112, 100%) and types of pathologies treated (n = 104, 92.9%). Meanwhile, the most routinely described preoperative variable was history of prior treatment (n = 48, 42.9%). Type of reconstruction was a commonly reported intraoperative variable (n = 110, 98.2%), though the rate of intraoperative cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak was noted in only 76 studies (67.9%). With regard to postoperative outcomes, postoperative CSF leak rate was routinely provided (n = 101, 90.2%), but reporting of other surgical complications was more inconsistent. Ultimately, of the 43 variables and outcomes reviewed, a median of 12 (range: 4–22) was reported in each study. Conclusions There is significant heterogeneity in the outcomes reported in studies relating to ESBR. This highlights the need for the development of standard reporting guidelines to minimize bias and improve interstudy comparability.

show abstract

Postoperative otorhinolaryngologic complications in transnasal endoscopic surgery to access the skull base

Cited by 48 publications

References 38 publications

Olfactory outcomes after endoscopic skull base surgery: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Olfactory outcomes after endoscopic skull base surgery: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

ICAR: endoscopic skull‐base surgery

Heterogeneity in Outcome Reporting in Endoscopic Endonasal Skull Base Reconstruction: A Systematic Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About