Endonasal Endoscopic and Hybrid Surgery Techniques for Blunt Trauma Fractures of the Skull Base With Cerebrospinal Fluid Leaks.

ABSTRACT: Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage caused by skull base fracture represents high risks of bacterial meningitis, and a rate of mortality of 8.9%. Endoscopic endonasal repair of CSF leaks is quite safe and effective procedure with high rates of success. The aim of this study is to describe our technique for management of skull base CSF leaks secondary to craniofacial trauma based on the anatomic location of the leak. This is a retrospective case series of 17 patients with diagnosis of craniofacial trauma, surgically treated with sole endonasal endoscopic and combined endonasal/transcranial approaches with diagnosis of CSF leak secondary to skull base fractures. Seventeen patients met inclusion criteria for this study. Mean age was 46 years old. Most common etiology was motor vehicle. Early surgery was performed in 8 patients, and late surgery in 9 patients. The most common site of CSF leak was at ethmoid cells or at the fronto-ethmoid junction in 9 patients. Thirteen patients (76.4%) were treated only with endonasal endoscopic technique, and 4 (23.5%) with hybrid surgery, combining endonasal endoscopic and cranial bicoronal approaches with nasal and pericranial vascularized flaps, and nasal mucosal free flaps. Mean hospital stay was 23.7 days.The mean follow-up time was 25.6 months. When surgical reconstruction is indicated for CSF leaks secondary to skull base fractures, endonasal endoscopic techniques should be part of the surgical management either as a sole procedure, or in combination with classical transcranial approaches with high rates of success and low morbidity.

Superior Semicircular Canal Dehiscence Syndrome - Diagnosis and Surgical Management.

Introduction Superior semicircular canal dehiscence syndrome was described by Minor et al in 1998. It is a troublesome syndrome that results in vertigo and oscillopsia induced by loud sounds or changes in the pressure of the external auditory canal or middle ear. Patients may present with autophony, hyperacusis, pulsatile tinnitus and hearing loss. When symptoms are mild, they are usually managed conservatively, but surgical intervention may be needed for patients with debilitating symptoms. Objective The aim of this manuscript is to review the different surgical techniques used to repair the superior semicircular canal dehiscence. Data Sources PubMed and Ovid-SP databases. Data Synthesis The different approaches are described and discussed, as well as their limitations. We also review the advantages and disadvantages of the plugging, capping and resurfacing techniques to repair the dehiscence. Conclusions Each of the surgical approaches has advantages and disadvantages. The middle fossa approach gives a better view of the dehiscence, but comes with a higher morbidity than the transmastoid approach. Endoscopic assistance may be advantageous during the middle cranial fossa approach for better visualization. The plugging and capping techniques are associated with higher success rates than resurfacing, with no added risk of hearing loss.

Evolution from microscopic transoral to endoscopic endonasal odontoidectomy.

OBJECT: The goal of this study was to compare the indications, benefits, and complications between the endoscopic endonasal approach (EEA) and the microscopic transoral approach to perform an odontoidectomy. Transoral approaches have been standard for odontoidectomy procedures; however, the potential benefits of the EEA might be demonstrated to be a more innocuous technique. The authors present their experience with 12 consecutive cases that required odontoidectomy and posterior instrumentation. METHODS: Twelve consecutive cases of craniovertebral junction instability with or without basilar invagination were diagnosed at the National Institute of Neurology and Neurosurgery in Mexico City, Mexico, between January 2009 and January 2013. The EEA was used for 5 cases in which the odontoid process was above the nasopalatine line, and was compared with 7 cases in which the odontoid process was beneath the nasopalatine line; these were treated using the transoral microscopic approach (TMA). Odontoidectomy was performed after occipital-cervical or cervical posterior augmentation with lateral mass and translaminar screws. One case was previously fused (Oc-C4 fusion). The senior author performed all surgeries. American Spinal Injury Association scores were documented before surgical treatment and after at least 6 months of follow-up. RESULTS: Neurological improvement after odontoidectomy was similar for both groups. From the transoral group, 2 patients had postoperative dysphonia, 1 patient presented with dysphagia, and 1 patient had intraoperative CSF leakage. The endoscopic procedure required longer surgical time, less time to extubation and oral feeding, a shorter hospital stay, and no complications in this series. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic endonasal odontoidectomy is a feasible, safe, and well-tolerated procedure. In this small series there was no difference in the outcome between the EEA and the TMA; however, fewer complications were documented with the endonasal technique.