Levine, Corinna G.

ABSTRACT Objective There is limited consensus on endoscopic skull base surgery (ESBS) reconstruction principles. This study aims to generate comprehensive themes regarding ESBS reconstruction by pooling the experiences of ESBS experts, with comparison to a literature review of current published evidence. Methods Structured qualitative interviews of ESBS experts regarding postoperative management and reconstruction of various defect locations were conducted. Results A total of 68 experts comprising 40 academic teams across 13 countries with an average of 18 years of ESBS experience were included. We propose 10 stepwise algorithms for common skull base reconstruction scenarios based on these expert interviews. When available, the nasoseptal flap is used for all high_flow cerebrospinal leak defects. Multilayered reconstruction is favored at all anatomical subsites with increasing number of layers for increasing defect size and complexity. Heterogeneity exists in terms of inlay technique and materials, free grafting versus various pedicled flap options for low‐flow defects or in the absence of a nasal septum, nasal packing, tissue sealant, lumbar drain use, and postoperative management. Commonalities and discrepancies between experts were summarized. Conclusion Skull base reconstruction and post‐ESBS management is highly complex with a wide variety of practice patterns and expert strategies. Further research of higher quality evidence is warranted to identify optimal management patterns, though the current work aims to inform surgeons on these controversial areas by drawing from numerous experiences.

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.