CRANIAL Consortium;
(2023)
CSF rhinorrhoea after endonasal intervention to the skull base (CRANIAL): A multicentre prospective observational study.
Frontiers in Oncology
, 12
10.3389/fonc.2022.1049627.
Preview |
Text
fonc-12-1049627.pdf - Published Version Download (2MB) | Preview |
Abstract
Objective: Despite progress in endonasal skull-base neurosurgery, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) rhinorrhoea remains common and significant. The CRANIAL study sought to determine 1) the scope of skull-base repair methods used, and 2) corresponding rates of postoperative CSF rhinorrhoea in the endonasal transsphenoidal approach (TSA) and the expanded endonasal approach (EEA) for skull-base tumors. Methods: A prospective observational cohort study of 30 centres performing endonasal skull-base neurosurgery in the UK and Ireland (representing 91% of adult units). Patients were identified for 6 months and followed up for 6 months. Data collection and analysis was guided by our published protocol and pilot studies. Descriptive statistics, univariate and multivariable logistic regression models were used for analysis. Results: A total of 866 patients were included - 726 TSA (84%) and 140 EEA (16%). There was significant heterogeneity in repair protocols across centres. In TSA cases, nasal packing (519/726, 72%), tissue glues (474/726, 65%) and hemostatic agents (439/726, 61%) were the most common skull base repair techniques. Comparatively, pedicled flaps (90/140, 64%), CSF diversion (38/140, 27%), buttresses (17/140, 12%) and gasket sealing (11/140, 9%) were more commonly used in EEA cases. CSF rhinorrhoea (biochemically confirmed or requiring re-operation) occurred in 3.9% of TSA (28/726) and 7.1% of EEA (10/140) cases. A significant number of patients with CSF rhinorrhoea (15/38, 39%) occurred when no intraoperative CSF leak was reported. On multivariate analysis, there may be marginal benefits with using tissue glues in TSA (OR: 0.2, CI: 0.1-0.7, p<0.01), but no other technique reached significance. There was evidence that certain characteristics make CSF rhinorrhoea more likely – such as previous endonasal surgery and the presence of intraoperative CSF leak. Conclusions: There is a wide range of skull base repair techniques used across centres. Overall, CSF rhinorrhoea rates across the UK and Ireland are lower than generally reported in the literature. A large proportion of postoperative leaks occurred in the context of occult intraoperative CSF leaks, and decisions for universal sellar repairs should consider the risks and cost-effectiveness of repair strategies. Future work could include longer-term, higher-volume studies, such as a registry; and high-quality interventional studies.
Type: | Article |
---|---|
Title: | CSF rhinorrhoea after endonasal intervention to the skull base (CRANIAL): A multicentre prospective observational study |
Open access status: | An open access version is available from UCL Discovery |
DOI: | 10.3389/fonc.2022.1049627 |
Publisher version: | https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.1049627 |
Language: | English |
Additional information: | Copyright © 2023 CRANIAL Consortium. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
Keywords: | cerebrospinal fluid rhinorrhoea, CSF, EEA, endoscopic endonasal, cerebrospinal fluid leak, skull base surgery |
UCL classification: | UCL UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Brain Sciences UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Brain Sciences > UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology |
URI: | https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10163712 |
Archive Staff Only
View Item |