Lal, Devyani

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.

ObjectiveTo develop a clinical consensus statement on the use of balloon dilation of the eustachian tube (BDET).MethodsAn expert panel of otolaryngologists was assembled with nominated representatives of general otolaryngology and relevant subspecialty societies. The target population was adults 18 years or older who are candidates for BDET because of obstructive eustachian tube dysfunction (OETD) in 1 or both ears for 3 months or longer that significantly affects quality of life or functional health status. A modified Delphi method was used to distill expert opinion into clinical statements that met a standardized definition of consensus.ResultsAfter 3 iterative Delphi method surveys, 28 statements met the predefined criteria for consensus, while 28 statements did not. The clinical statements were grouped into 3 categories for the purposes of presentation and discussion: (1) patient criteria, (2) perioperative considerations, and (3) outcomes.ConclusionThis panel reached consensus on several statements that clarify diagnosis and perioperative management of OETD. Lack of consensus on other statements likely reflects knowledge gaps regarding the role of BDET in managing OETD. Expert panel consensus may provide helpful information for the otolaryngologist considering the use of BDET for the management of patients with OETD.

ObjectiveThe narrative operative report (NR) bears testimony to critical elements of patient care. Residents’ NRs also provide insights into their comprehension of the procedure. NR documentation is an informal element of surgical residency training but data regarding quality of such training are scant. We aim to evaluate the NR within a residency training program.MethodsThe quality of NRs for endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) was evaluated through a retrospective analysis of 90 NRs for ESS. Thirty‐four elements that the attending surgeon regards as “critical” variables, or quality indicators (QIs), that should be documented, were studied to evaluate quality. A “performance metric (PM),” defined as the average percent of QIs dictated/total word count, was determined. Subgroup analysis by the level of training was additionally performed.ResultsSurgical indications, procedural steps, and immediate postoperative findings were accurately documented in 71%, 84%, and 82% of patients, respectively. The attending surgeon had the highest proportion of included key elements (89% ± 6.2%) followed by junior residents (87% ± 5.7%) and then senior residents (80% ± 14%) (P = .008). The attending surgeon also demonstrated the highest PM, followed by senior and then junior residents (P < .0001).ConclusionsThe quality of NRs was found to be high overall, but not “perfect” for either the attending or trainee surgeon. The PM among residents was expectedly lower than the attending surgeon. We propose that a synoptic reporting system that ensures inclusion of key elements may be helpful in training residents (and attendings) in creating comprehensive and efficient NRs.Level of Evidence3

BackgroundRevision surgery rates following endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) range between 7% and 50% and are influenced by many factors. This study investigates ESS outcomes for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) subtypes.MethodsRetrospective review of adult CRS patients undergoing ESS with a single surgeon (2010‐2015) was conducted. Outcomes were analyzed by CRS subtypes.ResultsESS was performed in 424 CRS patients (CRS with nasal polyps [CRSwNP], n = 170; CRS without polyps [CRSsNP], n = 254). Most patients (309; 72.9%) could not be specifically subtyped; 115 (27.1%) were subtyped as follows: aspirin‐exacerbated respiratory disease (AERD), n = 47 (11.1%); allergic fungal sinusitis (AFS), n = 39 (9.2%); immunodeficiency, n = 21 (5.0%); granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA), n = 5 (1.2%); and eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA), n = 3 (0.7%). All subgroups experienced clinically meaningful reduction in postoperative 22‐item Sino‐Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT‐22) scores. At median follow‐up of 28 months (interquartile range [IQR], 10–47 months), 19 patients (4%) underwent revision ESS (CRSwNP, n = 6; CRSsNP, n = 13). Revision ESS rates were 3.5% and 5.1% for CRSwNP and CRSsNP, respectively. Revision ESS rate for subtypes were: AERD 2%; AFS 2%; immunodeficiency 14%; GPA 40%; EGPA 0%; and “all other CRS” 4% at median follow‐up duration of 36, 28, 41, 37, 44, and 26 months, respectively.ConclusionAll CRS subtypes demonstrated clinically meaningful improvement in postoperative SNOT‐22 scores following ESS. Our overall revision ESS rate was 4% (3.5% in CRSwNP). AFS, AERD, and EGPA groups demonstrated low revision rates, while immunodeficiency and GPA patients required more revision surgery. A contemporary understanding of CRSwNP subtypes facilitated surgical and medical strategies in improving outcomes for AERD, AFS, and EGPA patients. CRSsNP subtypes with immunodeficiency and GPA merit further investigation to optimize outcomes.