Froelich, Sébastien

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.

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.

Object Historically, surgery to the petrous apex has been addressed via craniotomy and open microscopic anterior petrosectomy (OAP). However, with the popularization of endoscopic approaches, the petrous apex can further be approached endonasally by way of an endoscopic endonasal anterior petrosectomy (EAP). Endonasal anterior petrosectomy is a relatively new procedure and has not been compared anatomically with OAP. The authors hypothesized that the EAP and OAP techniques approach different portions of the petrous apex and therefore may have different applications. Methods Four cadaveric heads were used. An OAP was performed on one side and an EAP was performed on the contralateral side; the limits of bony resection were defined. The extent of bony resection was then evaluated using predissection and postdissection thin-slice CT scans. The comparative resection was then reconstructed using 3D modeling on Brainlab workstations. Results The average resection volumes for EAP and OAP were 0.297 cm 3 and 0.649 cm 3 , respectively, representing a comparative percentage of 46% (EAP/OAP). An EAP and OAP achieved resection of 29% and 64% of the total petrous apex volume, respectively. Indeed, EAP addressed the inferior portion of the petrous apex located adjacent to the petroclival suture more completely than OAP, where 45% of the bone overlying the petroclival suture (petroclival angle to the jugular foramen) was resected with the EAP, while 0% was resected with the OAP. Conclusions In anatomically normal cadavers, OAP achieved nearly a 50% larger volumetric resection than EAP. Furthermore, while OAP appears to completely address the superior portion of the petrous apex, EAP appears to have a niche in approaches to lesions in the inferior petrous apex. Given these results, the authors propose that OAP be redefined as the “superior anterior petrosectomy,” while EAP be referred to as the “inferior anterior petrosectomy,” which more clearly defines the role of each approach in anterior petrosectomy.