ABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Endoscopy/methods , Neurosurgical Procedures/methods , Otorhinolaryngologic Surgical Procedures/methods , Skull Base/surgery , Humans , Outcome Assessment, Health CareABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic maxillary mega-antrostomy (EMMA) is a revision surgical procedure for recalcitrant maxillary sinusitis in which medical therapy and endoscopic antrostomy have been unsuccessful. In 2008 our group published favorable outcomes of EMMA in 28 patients with relatively short follow-up and nonvalidated outcome measures. This study reports an update of long-term outcomes of this same cohort, as well as outcomes of an interval cohort of 94 patients using validated outcome measures. METHODS: Retrospective review was performed for 122 patients (163 sides) who underwent EMMA between 2005 and 2013. For the original 2008 cohort, the original questionnaire from 2008 was readministered by telephone interview. For the interval cohort, preoperative and postoperative SNOT-22 symptom scores and modified Lund-Kennedy endoscopic scores were compared. RESULTS: The original 2008 cohort of 28 patients, now with a mean follow-up period of 6.9 years, demonstrated sustained improvement of symptoms. The outcomes were statistically comparable to the 2008 study, with 72.4% reporting complete or significant improvement, 27.6% reporting partial improvement, and 0% reporting worsening.