Dallan, Iacopo

ABSTRACT Introduction Sinonasal sarcomas are exceedingly rare entities, constituting less than 7% of head and neck sarcomas. Their complex histology needs specialized treatment, which is often based on multimodal approaches including surgery, radiation therapy, and/or chemotherapy. This manuscript aims to gather expert opinions to establish common management principles for sinonasal sarcomas. Methods This international consensus followed a modified Delphi method in seven steps, including statements definition by the core group, expert panel recruitment, and a two‐round survey. Sixty‐two statements on sinonasal sarcoma management were developed. Experts from multiple continents participated, and results were anonymized and analyzed between March and May 2025. Results A total of 44 invited experts were recruited, 43.2% otorhinolaryngologists/head and neck surgeons, 31.8% medical oncologists, and 25% radiation oncologists. Participants varied in age and experience, representing Europe (70.5%), North America (18.2%), South America (6.8%), and Asia (4.5%). Among all histologies, biphenotypic sarcoma, chondrosarcoma, leiomyosarcoma, and myofibrosarcoma are principally treated with an upfront surgical management, differently from Ewing sarcoma and rhabdomyosarcoma in which chemotherapy, eventually associated with radiotherapy, is often chosen. In the remaining histologies (angiosarcoma, liposarcoma, malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor [MPNST], osteosarcoma, and synovial sarcoma), a precise multimodal treatment is less standardized and needs to be discussed on a case‐by‐case basis. Conclusion Sinonasal sarcomas require a histology‐driven approach to determine upfront treatment, whether surgical, medical, or multimodal. Despite this structured strategy, prognosis remains highly variable across subtypes. Multidisciplinary evaluation and individualized management in referral centers are crucial to address the biological diversity and anatomical complexity of these rare malignancies.

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 malignancies with orbital invasion have dismal prognosis even when treated with orbital exenteration (OE). Sugawara et al. developed a surgical strategy called “extended‐OE (EOE),” showing encouraging outcomes. We hypothesized that a similar resection is achievable under endoscopic guidance through the exenterated orbit (endoscopic‐EOE). Methods The study was conducted in three institutions: University of Vienna; Mayo Clinic; University of Insubria; 48 orbital dissections were performed. A questionnaire was developed to evaluate feasibility and safety of each step, scoring from 1 to 10, (“impossible” to “easy,” and “high risk” to “low risk,” respectively), most likely complication(s) were hypothesized. Results The step‐by‐step technique is thoroughly described. The questionnaire was answered by 25 anterior skull base surgeons from six countries. Mean, median, range, and interquartile range of both feasibility and safety scores are reported. Conclusions Endoscopic‐EOE is a challenging but feasible procedure. Clinical validation is required to assess real‐life outcomes.

Background: The transorbital approaches (TOAs) have acquired growing notoriety, thanks to their ability to offer alternative corridors to the skull base. However, the limited access and the unfamiliarity with this surgical perspective make recognition of key landmarks difficult, especially for less experienced surgeons. The study wants to offer a detailed description of the anatomy to comprehend the potential and limitations of TOAs. Methods: Measurements of the orbit region and the surrounding areas were performed on two hundred high-resolution CT scans and thirty-nine dry skulls. Five specimens were dissected to illustrate the TOA, and one was used to perform the extradural clinoidectomy. Three clinical cases highlighted the surgical applications. Results: A step-by-step description of the key steps of the TOA was proposed and a comparison with the transcranial anterior clinoidectomy was discussed. The mean work distance was 6.1 ± 0.4 cm, and the lateral working angle increased 20 ± 5.4° after removing the lateral orbital rim. Conclusions: TOAs are indicated in selected cases when tumor involves the lateral portion of the cavernous sinus or the middle skull base, obtaining a direct decompression of the optic nerve and avoiding excessive manipulation of the neurovascular structures. Comprehension of surgical anatomy of the orbit and its surrounding structures is essential to safely perform these approaches.

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.

AbstractBackgroundThe Cavernous Hemangioma Exclusively Endonasal Resection (CHEER) staging system has become the gold standard for outcomes reporting in endoscopic orbital surgery for orbital cavernous hemangiomas (OCHs). A recent systematic review demonstrated similar outcomes between OCHs and other primary benign orbital tumors (PBOTs). Therefore, we hypothesized that a simplified and more comprehensive classification system could be developed to predict surgical outcomes of other PBOTs.MethodsPatient and tumor characteristics as well as surgical outcomes from 11 international centers were recorded. All tumors were retrospectively assigned an Orbital Resection by Intranasal Technique (ORBIT) class and stratified based on surgical approach as either exclusively endoscopic or combined (endoscopic and open). Outcomes based on approach were compared using chi‐squared or Fisher's exact tests. The Cochrane‐Armitage test for trend was used to analyze outcomes by class.ResultsFindings from 110 PBOTs from 110 patients (age 49.0 ± 15.0 years, 51.9% female) were included in the analysis. Higher ORBIT class was associated with a lower likelihood of gross total resection (GTR). GTR was more likely to be achieved when an exclusively endoscopic approach was utilized (p < 0.05). Tumors resected using a combined approach tended to be larger, to present with diplopia, and to have an immediate postoperative cranial nerve palsy (p < 0.05).ConclusionEndoscopic treatment of PBOTs is an effective approach, with favorable short‐term and long‐term postoperative outcomes as well as low rate of adverse events. The ORBIT classification system is an anatomic‐based framework that effectively facilitates high‐quality outcomes reporting for all PBOTs.