Evans, James J.

Abstract Background Sinonasal neoplasms, whether benign and malignant, pose a significant challenge to clinicians and represent a model area for multidisciplinary collaboration in order to optimize patient care. The International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Sinonasal Tumors (ICSNT) aims to summarize the best available evidence and presents 48 thematic and histopathology‐based topics spanning the field. Methods In accordance with prior International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology documents, ICSNT assigned each topic as an Evidence‐Based Review with Recommendations, Evidence‐Based Review, and Literature Review based on the level of evidence. An international group of multidisciplinary author teams were assembled for the topic reviews using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses format, and completed sections underwent a thorough and iterative consensus‐building process. The final document underwent rigorous synthesis and review prior to publication. Results The ICSNT document consists of four major sections: general principles, benign neoplasms and lesions, malignant neoplasms, and quality of life and surveillance. It covers 48 conceptual and/or histopathology‐based topics relevant to sinonasal neoplasms and masses. Topics with a high level of evidence provided specific recommendations, while other areas summarized the current state of evidence. A final section highlights research opportunities and future directions, contributing to advancing knowledge and community intervention. Conclusion As an embodiment of the multidisciplinary and collaborative model of care in sinonasal neoplasms and masses, ICSNT was designed as a comprehensive, international, and multidisciplinary collaborative endeavor. Its primary objective is to summarize the existing evidence in the field of sinonasal neoplasms and masses.

Abstract Introduction Transnasal access to the anterior skull base provides a minimally invasive approach for sellar and parasellar masses compared with its open counterparts. The unique microbiome of the sinonasal mucosa provides distinct challenges not encountered with other cranial approaches. The use of antibiotics in these cases has not been standardized, and data remain scarce regarding infectious outcomes. Methods We conducted a multicenter retrospective analysis of shared quality data points for the endoscopic endonasal approach (EEA) for pituitary adenomas, along with other sellar and parasellar region masses that were included by participating institutions. Patient and operative characteristics, perioperative and postoperative antibiotic regimens and their durations, intraoperative and postoperative cerebrospinal fluid leak, and onset of postoperative meningitis and sinusitis were compared. Results Fifteen institutions participated and provided 6 consecutive months' worth of case data. Five hundred ninety-three cases were included in the study, of which 564 were pituitary adenomectomies. The incidences of postoperative meningitis and sinusitis were low (0.67 and 2.87% for all pathologies, respectively; 0.35% meningitis for pituitary adenomas) and did not correlate with any specific antibiotic regimen. Immunocompromised status posed an increased odds of meningitis in pituitary adenomectomies (28.6, 95% confidence interval [1.72–474.4]). Conclusions The results show no clear benefit to postoperative antimicrobial use in EEA, with further larger studies needed.

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.