CSF rhinorrhoea after endonasal intervention to the anterior skull base (CRANIAL): proposal for a prospective multicentre observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The endonasal transsphenoidal approach (TSA) has emerged as the preferred approach in order to treat pituitary adenoma and related sellar pathologies. The recently adopted expanded endonasal approach (EEA) has improved access to the ventral skull base whilst retaining the principles of minimally invasive surgery. Despite the advantages these approaches offer, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) rhinorrhoea remains a common complication. There is currently a lack of comparative evidence to guide the best choice of skull base reconstruction, resulting in considerable heterogeneity of current practice. This study aims to determine: (1) the scope of the methods of skull base repair; and (2) the corresponding rates of postoperative CSF rhinorrhoea in contemporary neurosurgical practice in the UK and Ireland. METHODS: We will adopt a multicentre, prospective, observational cohort design. All neurosurgical units in the UK and Ireland performing the relevant surgeries (TSA and EEA) will be eligible to participate. Eligible cases will be prospectively recruited over 6 months with 6 months of postoperative follow-up. Data points collected will include: demographics, tumour characteristics, operative data), and postoperative outcomes. Primary outcomes include skull base repair technique and CSF rhinorrhoea (biochemically confirmed and/or requiring intervention) rates. Pooled data will be analysed using descriptive statistics. All skull base repair methods used and CSF leak rates for TSA and EEA will be compared against rates listed in the literature. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Formal institutional ethical board review was not required owing to the nature of the study - this was confirmed with the Health Research Authority, UK. CONCLUSIONS: The need for this multicentre, prospective, observational study is highlighted by the relative paucity of literature and the resultant lack of consensus on the topic. It is hoped that the results will give insight into contemporary practice in the UK and Ireland and will inform future studies.

British Rhinological Society Consensus Guidance on the use of biological therapies for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps.

OBJECTIVES: We set out to create Consensus Guidelines, based on current evidence and relative risks of adverse effects and the costs of different treatments, which reflect the views of the British Rhinological Society (BRS) Council on where the use of biologics should be positioned within treatment pathways for CRSwNP, specifically in the setting of the National Health Service (NHS). DESIGN: An expert panel of 16 members was assembled. A review of the literature and evidence synthesis was undertaken and circulated to the panel. We used the RAND/UCLA methodology with a multi-step process to make recommendations on the use of biologics. SETTING: N/A. PARTICIPANTS: N/A. RESULTS: Recommendations were made, based on underlying disease severity, prior treatments and co-morbidities. A group of patients for whom biologics were considered an appropriate treatment option for CRSwNP was defined. CONCLUSIONS: Although biologics are not currently available for the treatment of CRSwNP, the BRS Council have defined a group of patients who have higher rates of "failure" with current treatment pathways, higher resource use and are more likely to suffer with uncontrolled symptoms. We would urge NICE to consider approval of biologics for such indications without applying further restrictions on use.

Management of new onset loss of sense of smell during the COVID-19 pandemic - BRS Consensus Guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: The primary aim of the study is to provide recommendations for the investigation and management of patients with new onset loss of sense of smell during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: After undertaking a literature review, we used the RAND/UCLA methodology with a multi-step process to reach consensus about treatment options, onward referral, and imaging. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: An expert panel consisting of 15 members was assembled. A literature review was undertaken prior to the study and evidence was summarised for the panellists. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The panel undertook a process of ranking and classifying appropriateness of different investigations and treatment options for new onset loss of sense of smell during the COVID-19 pandemic. Using a 9-point Likert scale, panellists scored whether a treatment was: Not recommended, optional, or recommended. Consensus was achieved when more than 70% of responses fell into the category defined by the mean. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on the majority of statements after 2 rounds of ranking. Disagreement meant no recommendation was made regarding one treatment, using Vitamin A drops. Alpha-lipoic acid was not recommended, olfactory training was recommended for all patients with persistent loss of sense of smell of more than 2 weeks duration, and oral steroids, steroid rinses, and omega 3 supplements may be considered on an individual basis. Recommendations regarding the need for referral and investigation have been made. CONCLUSION: This study identified the appropriateness of olfactory training, different medical treatment options, referral guidelines and imaging for patients with COVID-19-related loss of sense of smell. The guideline may evolve as our experience of COVID-19 develops.

Recurrence of a complex anterior skull base tumour managed with an uncommon surgical approach.

A well 74 -year-old woman presented to routine ophthalmology clinic instituted following treatment of a frontoethmoidal sarcoma initially excised in 1989 and diagnosed then as a sinus mucosal melanoma. At review in ophthalmology clinic, a reduction in right visual fields was noted. CT scan showed recurrence of a mass now involving the frontoethmoidal region, frontal sinus and abutting the cribiform plate. Endoscopic biopsy confirmed the recurrence as a low-grade biphenotypic sarcoma. This was discussed at the sarcoma multidisciplinary meeting. Using a three-dimensional printed model of the patients skull for planning, primary surgery with craniofacial resection combining intracranial and transfacial approaches with reconstruction was decided on. The implications of no treatment would be tumour involvement of the dura and brain as well as the right only-seeing eye. Craniofacial surgery would involve otolaryngolical, neurosurgical and maxillofacial multispecialty involvement and close teamwork. The goal was en bloc excision with negative surgical margins.