Back to Authors

Sindwani, Raj

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6584-922X

Mayo Clinic

Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine

Citations 14

Expert Strategies: Skull Base Reconstruction—Global Perspectives, Insights, and Algorithms through a Mixed Methods Approach
Talati, Vidit , Patel, Jagatkumar A. , Nguyen, Theodore V. , Pang, Jonathan C. , Liu, Lauren , Craig, John R. , Papagiannopoulos, Peter , Phillips, Katie M. , Tajudeen, Bobby A. , Adappa, Nithin D. , Sedaghat, Ahmad R. , Anand, Vijay K. , Batra, Pete S., Bergsneider, Marvin, Casiano, Roy R. , Cavallo, Luigi Maria , Cohen, Marc A. , Eloy, Jean Anderson , Evans, James J., Fernandez‐Miranda, Juan C. , Ferrari, Marco , Froelich, Sébastien , Gardner, Paul A. , Gray, Stacey T. , Hanna, Ehab Y., Harvey, Richard J. , Hong, Sang Duk , Hwang, Peter H. , Kong, Doo‐Sik , Lan, Ming‐Ying , Lee, John Y. K. , Levine, Corinna G. , Meço, Cem , Nicolai, Piero, Nyquist, Gurston , Omura, Kazuhiro , Patel, Zara M. , Celda, María Peris, Prevedello, Danny M., Rabinowitz, Mindy, Raza, Shaan M., Sargi, Zoukaa , Schlosser, Rodney J. , Schwartz, Theodore H. , Sindwani, Raj , Stamm, Aldo Cassol , Thorp, Brian D. , Wang, Marilene B. , Wang, Wei‐Hsin , Witterick, Ian , Won, Tae‐Bin , Woodworth, Bradford A. , Wormald, Peter‐John, Zada, Gabriel , Su, Shirley Y. , Kuan, Edward C , Talati, Vidit , Nguyen, Theodore V , Pang, Jonathan C , Craig, John R , Sedaghat, Ahmad R , Wang, Eric W , Ferrari, Marco , Georgalas, Christos , Harvey, Richard J , Hwang, Peter H , Lan, Ming-Ying , Omura, Kazuhiro , Patel, Zara , Neto, Carlos Pinheiro, Schlosser, Rodney J , Snyderman, Carl H , Woodworth, Bradford A , Meço, Cem , Su, Shirley Y , Abiri, Arash , Goshtasbi, Khodayar , Adappa, Nithin D. , Bergsneider, Marvin , Bernal‐Sprekelsen, Manuel , Bleier, Benjamin S. , Cappabianca, Paolo , Carrau, Ricardo L. , Castelnuovo, Paolo , Dallan, Iacopo , El‐Sayed, Ivan H. , Hanna, Ehab Y., Kelly, Daniel F. , Liu, James K. , Locatelli, Davide , McKean, Erin L. , Nicolai, Piero , Passeri, Thibault , Pinheiro‐Neto, Carlos , Prevedello, Danny M., Recinos, Pablo F. , Rosen, Marc R , Turri‐Zanoni, Mario , Wormald, Peter‐John

International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology | May 15, 2025 | Volume: 15 | Issue: 10 | Pages: 1032-1069

10.1002/alr.23596 Get It

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.
International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Sinonasal Tumors
Adappa, Nithin D. , Beswick, Daniel M. , London, Nyall R. , Su, Shirley Y. , Wang, Marilene B. , Alexiev, Borislav A. , Antognoni, Paolo , Alonso‐Basanta, Michelle , Batra, Pete S., Bhayani, Mihir K. , Bell, Diana , Betz, Christian , Callejas, Claudio , Casiano, Roy R. , Chatzinakis, Vasileios , Chen, Simon , Chowdhury, Naweed I. , Citardi, Martin J. , Cohen, Marc A. , Dagan, Roi , Dalfino, Gianluca , Dassi, Camila , Almeida, John R. de , Tos, Angelo Paolo Dei , DelGaudio, John M. , Ebert, Charles S. , Eloy, Jean Anderson , Evans, James J., Fang, Christina H. , Farrell, Nyssa Fox , Ferrari, Marco , Fischbein, Nancy J. , Folbe, Adam J. , Fox, Meha G. , Lund, Valerie J. , Gallia, Gary L. , Gardner, Paul A. , Getz, Anne E., Govindaraj, Satish, Gray, Stacey T. , Gross, Bradley A. , Guo, Ruifeng , Ha, Patrick K. , Halderman, Ashleigh A. , Hanna, Ehab Y., Harvey, Richard J. , Hernandez, Stephen, Hopkins, Claire , Huang, Zhigang , Huang, Zhenxiao , Humphreys, Ian M. , Hwang, Peter H. , Iloreta, Alfred Marc, Ishii, Masaru , Jafari, Aria , Kennedy, David W. , Khan, Mohemmed, Kimple, Adam J. , Kingdom, Todd T. , Knisely, Anna, Kuo, Ying‐Ju , Lamarre, Eric , Lan, Ming‐Ying , Le, Hien , Lee, Nancy Y. , Lee, Jivianne K., Lee, Victor , Levine, Corinna G. , Lin, Jin‐Ching , Lin, Derrick T., Locke, Tran B. , Luong, Amber , Magliocca, Kelly R. , Matnjani, G., Meço, Cem , Michel, Loren S. , Na'ara, Shorook, Nicolai, Piero , Nuss, Daniel W. , Nyquist, Gurston , Oakley, Gretchen M. , Omura, Kazuhiro , Orlandi, Richard R. , Otori, Nobuyoshi , Papagiannopoulos, Peter , Patel, Zara M. , Pfister, David G. , Rabinowitz, Mindy, Sanusi, Olabisi , Sargi, Zoukaa , Schafhausen, Philippe, Schlosser, Rodney J. , Sedaghat, Ahmad R. , Senior, Brent A. , Shrivastava, Raj , Sindwani, Raj , Smith, Timothy L. , Smith, Kristine A. , Solares, C. Arturo , Stamm, Aldo Cassol , Stölzel, Katharina , Sumer, Baran D. , Tajudeen, Bobby A. , Thorp, Brian D. , Tsang, Raymond K. , VanKoevering, Kyle K. , Welch, Kevin C. , Wise, Sarah K. , Witterick, Ian , Won, Tae‐Bin , Wong, Stéphanie , Woodworth, Bradford A. , Wormald, Peter‐John , Zhou, Bing , Adappa, Nithin D. , Chapurin, Nikita , Ayoub, Noel , Bitner, Benjamin F. , Chang, Michael T. , Kuan, Edward C , Wang, Eric W , Beswick, Daniel , Wang, Marilene B , Alt, Jeremiah A , Bleier, Benjamin , Callejas, Claudio , Choby, Garret , Dalfino, Gianluca , Eloy, Jean Anderson , Fang, Christina H , Farrell, Nyssa F , Ferrari, Marco , Georgalas, Christos , Grayson, Jessica W , Harvey, Richard J , Holtzman, Adam L. , Hopkins, Claire , Humphreys, Ian M , Hwang, Peter H , Jafari, Aria , Kimple, Adam J , Lal, Devyani , Lan, Ming-Ying , Luong, Amber U , Meço, Cem , Omura, Kazuhiro , Orlandi, Richard , Patel, Zara , Sedaghat, Ahmad R , Senior, Brent A , Smith, Timothy L , Smith, Kristine , Snyderman, Carl H , Tong, Charles C L , van Zele, Thibaut , Won, Tae-Bin , Woodworth, Bradford A , Yao, William C , Yeh, Chien-Fu , Zhou, Bing , Schlosser, Rodney J , Bitner, Benjamin , Guo, Ruifeng , Chang, Michael T , Su, Shirley Y , Locke, Tran Bao , Adappa, Nithin D. , Abuzeid, Waleed M. , Alt, Jeremiah A. , Bernal‐Sprekelsen, Manuel , Blay, Jean‐Yves , Bleier, Benjamin S. , Bonilla‐Velez, Juliana , Carrau, Ricardo L. , Castelnuovo, Paolo , Chandra, Rakesh Kumar , Chiu, Alexander G. , Choby, Garret , Dallan, Iacopo , El‐Sayed, Ivan H. , Fokkens, Wytske Johanna , Geltzeiler, Mathew , Grayson, Jessica W. , Gross, Bradley , Grube, Jordon G. , Hanna, Ehab Y., Ivan, Michael E , Khan, Mohemmed N., Lal, Devyani , Lechner, Matt , Lobo, Brian C. , Markovic, Svetomir N. , McKean, Erin L. , Mendenhall, William M , Phan, Jack , Psaltis, Alkis J. , Ramanathan, Murugappan , Rimmer, Ryan , Rosen, Marc R , Sreenath, Satyan B , Šurda, Pavol , Thompson, Lester D.�R. , Turner, Justin H. , Turri‐Zanoni, Mario , Udager, Aaron M , Yao, William C.

International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology | September 2, 2023 | Volume: 14 | Issue: 2 | Pages: 149-608

10.1002/alr.23262 Get It

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.
International consensus statement on allergy and rhinology: rhinosinusitis 2021
Orlandi, Richard R. , Kingdom, Todd T. , Smith, Timothy L. , Bleier, Benjamin S. , DeConde, Adam S., Luong, Amber , Poetker, David M., Welch, Kevin C. , Wise, Sarah K. , Adappa, Nithin D. , Anselmo‐Lima, Wilma Terezinha , Bachert, Claus , Baroody, Fuad M. , Batra, Pete S., Bernal‐Sprekelsen, Manuel , Bhattacharyya, Neil , Chang, Eugene H., Chowdhury, Naweed I. , Citardi, Martin J. , Cohen, Noah , Conley, David B. , DelGaudio, John M. , Desrosiers, Martin , Douglas, Richard , Eloy, Jean Anderson , Gray, Stacey T. , Gudis, David A. , Hamilos, Daniel L. , Han, Joseph K., Harvey, Richard J. , Hellings, Peter W. , Hopkins, Claire , Hwang, Peter H. , Javer, Amin R. , Kennedy, David W. , Kern, Robert C. , Lee, Heung‐Man , Lee, Jivianne T. , Levy, Joshua M. , Lin, Sandra Y. , Lund, Valerie, McMains, Kevin C. , Metson, Ralph, Naclerio, Robert M. , Oakley, Gretchen M. , Otori, Nobuyoshi , Parikh, Sanjay R., Patel, Zara M. , Peters, Anju T. , Philpott, Carl , Roh, Hwan‐Jung , Rudmik, Luke , Sacks, Raymond , Schlosser, Rodney J. , Sedaghat, Ahmad R. , Senior, Brent A. , Sindwani, Raj , Smith, Kristine A. , Stewart, Michael G. , Suh, Jeffrey D. , Tan, Bruce K. , Drunen, Cornelis M. van , Woodworth, Bradford A. , Wormald, Peter‐John , Wright, Erin D. , Yan, Carol H. , Zhang, Luo , Zhou, Bing , Chang, Michael T. , Bleier, Benjamin , Alt, Jeremiah A , Beswick, Daniel , Eloy, Jean Anderson , Gudis, David A , Holbrook, Eric H , Hopkins, Claire , Javer, Amin R , Jiang, Rong-San , Lal, Devyani , Lee, Heung-Man , Levy, Joshua M , Patel, Zara , Philpott, Carl , Ramakrishnan, Vijay R , Smith, Kristine , Yan, Carol , Zhang, Luo , Schlosser, Rodney J , Harvey, Richard J , Hwang, Peter H , Chang, Michael T , Soler, Zachary M. , Adappa, Nithin D. , Alt, Jeremiah A. , Beswick, Daniel M. , Chandra, Rakesh Kumar , Chang, Eugene H., Chiu, Alexander G. , Cohen, Noam A., Fokkens, Wytske Johanna , Holbrook, Eric H. , Laidlaw, Tanya M. , Lal, Devyani , Lane, Andrew P , Mullol, Joaquim , Passàli, Desiderio , Psaltis, Alkis J. , Ramanathan, Murugappan , Snidvongs, Kornkiat , Turner, Justin H. , Voegels, Richard Louis , Wang, De Yun

International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology | November 25, 2020 | Volume: 11 | Issue: 3 | Pages: 213-739

10.1002/alr.22741 Get It

I. Executive Summary Background The 5 years since the publication of the first International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Rhinosinusitis (ICAR‐RS) has witnessed foundational progress in our understanding and treatment of rhinologic disease. These advances are reflected within the more than 40 new topics covered within the ICAR‐RS‐2021 as well as updates to the original 140 topics. This executive summary consolidates the evidence‐based findings of the document. Methods ICAR‐RS presents over 180 topics in the forms of evidence‐based reviews with recommendations (EBRRs), evidence‐based reviews, and literature reviews. The highest grade structured recommendations of the EBRR sections are summarized in this executive summary. Results ICAR‐RS‐2021 covers 22 topics regarding the medical management of RS, which are grade A/B and are presented in the executive summary. Additionally, 4 topics regarding the surgical management of RS are grade A/B and are presented in the executive summary. Finally, a comprehensive evidence‐based management algorithm is provided. Conclusion This ICAR‐RS‐2021 executive summary provides a compilation of the evidence‐based recommendations for medical and surgical treatment of the most common forms of RS.
ICAR: endoscopic skull‐base surgery
Zanation, Adam M., Gardner, Paul A. , Schwartz, Theodore H. , Eloy, Jean Anderson , Adappa, Nithin D. , Bettag, Martin, Casiano, Roy R. , Cavallo, Luigi Maria , Ebert, Charles S. , Evans, James J., Fernandez‐Miranda, Juan C. , Folbe, Adam J. , Froelich, Sébastien , Gentili, Fred, Harvey, Richard J. , Hwang, Peter H. , Jane, John A. , Kennedy, David W. , Knosp, Engelbert, Lee, John Y. K. , Lund, Valerie J. , Prevedello, Daniel M. , Schlosser, Rodney J. , Sindwani, Raj , Solares, C. Arturo , Tabaee, Abtin, Teo, Charles , Thirumala, Parthasarathy D. , Thorp, Brian D. , Vellutini, Eduardo de Arnaldo Silva , Witterick, Ian , Woodworth, Bradford A. , Wormald, Peter‐John , Mukherjee, Debraj , Wang, Eric W , Eloy, Jean Anderson , Lal, Devyani , Schlosser, Rodney J , Mukherjee, Debraj , Harvey, Richard J , Hwang, Peter H , Prevedello, Daniel M , Adappa, Nithin D. , Bleier, Benjamin S. , Cappabianca, Paolo , Carrau, Ricardo L. , El‐Sayed, Ivan H. , Kelly, Daniel F. , Lal, Devyani , Liu, James K. , Snyderman, Carl H

International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology | July 22, 2019 | Volume: 9 | Issue: S3 | Pages: No page available

10.1002/alr.22326 Get It

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.
Clinical Consensus Statement: Balloon Dilation of the Eustachian Tube
Tucci, Debara L. , Tunkel, David E. , Batra, Pete S., Chandrasekhar, Sujana S. , Cordes, Susan R., Kaylie, David M. , Lee, Jivianne, Setzen, Michael, Sindwani, Raj , Syms, Charles A., Bishop, Charles E. , Poe, Dennis S. , Corrigan, Maureen D. , Lambie, Erin M., McCoul, Edward D. , Rosenfeld, Richard M. , Eshraghi, Adrien A. , Lal, Devyani , Lee, Jivianne T.

Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery | June 4, 2019 | Volume: 161 | Issue: 1 | Pages: 6-17

10.1177/0194599819848423 Get It

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.
Role of Lumbar Drains in Contemporary Endonasal Skull Base Surgery: Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review
D’Anza, Brian , Tien, Due, Stokken, Janalee K., Recinos, Pablo F. , Woodard, Troy D. , Sindwani, Raj , Stokken, Janalee K. , Carlson, Matthew L , Recinos, Pablo F

American Journal of Rhinology & Allergy | November 22, 2016 | Volume: 30 | Issue: 6 | Pages: 430-435

10.2500/ajra.2016.30.4377 Get It

Background Historically, lumbar drains (LD) have played a prominent role in endonasal skull base surgery. Over the past few decades, advancements in techniques have augmented our ability to successfully reconstruct complex skull base defects and often obviates the need for cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) diversion. Clarity on the appropriate use of LDs is needed. Objective To examine the literature for the need for LDs in contemporary skull base reconstruction after resection of skull base tumors. Methods A systematic literature review of English language articles by using PubMed and Ovid. Search terms included “lumbar drain,” “CSF leak,” and “endoscopic endonasal reconstruction.” Articles were included when they pertained to adults, used current methods for reconstruction (i.e., multilayered repair or vascularized tissue), and addressed CSF leak rates secondary to endoscopic resection of skull base masses. All the studies discussed CSF leaks that resulted from traumatic-, idiopathic-, or sinus surgery-related iatrogenic causes were excluded. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. Results A total of five articles met inclusion criteria. These comprised 376 endoscopic skull base tumor resection and reconstruction cases; 5.59% developed postoperative CSF leaks. A meta-analysis was conducted by incorporating three studies that met criteria based on testing for heterogeneity. The average odds ratio for postoperative CSF leak for patients who did not have an LD relative to patients who had an LD was 0.590 (95% confidence interval, 0.214–1.630). Given a p value of 0.30, the results demonstrated a lack of statistically significant improvement between patients who had an LD and patients who did not have an LD. Various details, such as the defect size and type of CSF leak, were not consistently reported among studies. Conclusions Available evidence for the use of LDs in skull base surgery is of poor quality. Analysis of the literature revealed heterogenous and varied reporting in the primary literature. Further studies that include randomized controlled trials are needed.
Successful repair of intraoperative cerebrospinal fluid leaks improves outcomes in endoscopic skull base surgery
Shahangian, Arash, Baker, Andrew B. , Wise, Sarah K. , Rereddy, Shruthi K., Patel, Zara M. , Oyesiku, Nelson M. , DelGaudio, John M. , Hadjipanayis, Constantinos G., Woodworth, Bradford A. , Riley, Kristen , Lee, John, Govindaraj, Satish, Khan, Mohemmed N., Psaltis, Alkis J. , Wormald, Peter J. , Santoreneos, Stephen, Sindwani, Raj , Trosman, Samuel J. , Stokken, Janalee K., Woodard, Troy D. , Recinos, Pablo F. , Vandergrift, William A. , Boling, Caitlin, Schlosser, Rodney J. , Soler, Zachary M. , Lee, John, Cusimano, Michael D. , Patel, Zara , Schlosser, Rodney J , Recinos, Pablo F

International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology | August 31, 2016 | Volume: 7 | Issue: 1 | Pages: 80-86

10.1002/alr.21845 Get It

BackgroundThe impact of failed cerebrospinal fluid leak (CSF) leak repair in endoscopic skull base surgery has not been adequately studied.MethodsIn this investigation we reviewed patients who had undergone endoscopic skull base surgery between 2002 and 2014 at 7 international centers. Demographic variables, comorbidities, tumor characteristics, and repair techniques were evaluated to determine association with successful repair of CSF leak. Postoperative complications and length of stay were compared among groups.ResultsData were collected on 2097 patients who were divided into 3 groups: (1) those with no intraoperative leak (n = 1533); (2) those with successful repair of their intraoperative leak (n = 452); and (3) those with failed repair (n = 112). Compared with successful repair, failed repair was associated with an increased risk of intracranial infection (odds ratio [OR], 5.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.3‐13.15), pneumocephalus (OR, 16; 95% CI, 5.8‐44.4), 30‐day readmission (OR, 8.4; 95% CI, 5.3‐13.5), reoperation (OR, 115.4; 95% CI, 56.3‐236.8), and prolonged hospital stay (14.9 vs 7.0 days, p < 0.01). Outcomes in patients who had successful repairs of intraoperative leaks were similar to those who never had leakage. Intraoperative use of pedicled nasoseptal flaps was associated with successful repair (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.34‐0.92).ConclusionIntraoperative CSF leaks are a frequent and expected occurrence during endoscopic skull base surgery. Failed CSF leak repair has a significant impact on patient outcomes, with increased rates of postoperative pneumocephalus, intracranial infections, reoperation, deep vein thrombosis, readmission, and prolonged hospital stay. Recognition and repair of intraoperative CSF leaks reduces postoperative complications. Use of pedicled nasoseptal flaps improves outcomes in reconstructing defects at higher risk for postoperative leak.
Factors impacting cerebrospinal fluid leak rates in endoscopic sellar surgery
Karnezis, Tom T., Baker, Andrew B. , Wise, Sarah K. , Rereddy, Shruthi K., Patel, Zara M. , Oyesiku, Nelson M. , DelGaudio, John M. , Hadjipanayis, Constantinos G., Woodworth, Bradford A. , Riley, Kristen , Lee, John, Govindaraj, Satish, Psaltis, Alkis J. , Wormald, Peter J. , Santoreneos, Steve, Sindwani, Raj , Trosman, Samuel J. , Stokken, Janalee K., Woodard, Troy D. , Recinos, Pablo F. , Vandergrift, William A. , Schlosser, Rodney J. , Soler, Zachary M. , Lee, John, Cusimano, Michael D. , Patel, Zara , Schlosser, Rodney J , Recinos, Pablo F

International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology | August 23, 2016 | Volume: 6 | Issue: 11 | Pages: 1117-1125

10.1002/alr.21783 Get It

BackgroundIn patients undergoing transnasal endoscopic sellar surgery, an analysis of risk factors and predictors of intraoperative and postoperative cerebrospinal fluid leak (CSF) would provide important prognostic information.MethodsA retrospective review of patients undergoing endoscopic sellar surgery for pituitary adenomas or craniopharyngiomas between 2002 and 2014 at 7 international centers was performed. Demographic, comorbidity, and tumor characteristics were evaluated to determine the associations between intraoperative and postoperative CSF leaks. Correlations between reconstructive and CSF diversion techniques were associated with postoperative CSF leak rates. Odds ratios (OR) were identified using a multivariate logistic regression model.ResultsData were collected on 1108 pituitary adenomas and 53 craniopharyngiomas. Overall, 30.1% of patients had an intraoperative leak and 5.9% had a postoperative leak. Preoperative factors associated with increased intraoperative leaks were mild liver disease, craniopharyngioma, and extension into the anterior cranial fossa. In patients with intraoperative CSF leaks, postoperative leaks occurred in 10.3%, with a higher postoperative leak rate in craniopharyngiomas (20.8% vs 5.1% in pituitary adenomas). Once an intraoperative leak occurred, craniopharyngioma (OR = 4.255, p = 0.010) and higher body mass index (BMI) predicted postoperative leak (OR = 1.055, p = 0.010). In patients with an intraoperative leak, the use of septal flaps reduced the occurrence of postoperative leak (OR = 0.431, p = 0.027). Rigid reconstruction and CSF diversion techniques did not impact postoperative leak rates.ConclusionIntraoperative CSF leaks can occur during endoscopic sellar surgery, especially in larger tumors or craniopharyngiomas. Once an intraoperative leak occurs, risk factors for postoperative leaks include craniopharyngiomas and higher BMI. Use of septal flaps decreases this risk.
Chronic invasive fungal sinusitis: characterization and shift in management of a rare disease
D’Anza, Brian , Stokken, Janalee K., Greene, J. Scott , Kennedy, Thomas L., Woodard, Troy D. , Sindwani, Raj , Stokken, Janalee K. , Carlson, Matthew L

International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology | July 27, 2016 | Volume: 6 | Issue: 12 | Pages: 1294-1300

10.1002/alr.21828 Get It

BackgroundChronic invasive fungal sinusitis (CIFS) is a rare subtype of mycotic diseases involving the paranasal sinuses. It is characterized by a slow onset and invasive organisms with non‐granulomatous inflammation seen on histopathology. Historically, treatment has involved radical surgical resection. The purpose of this study was to describe the presentation, comorbidities, and role of more conservative treatment options.MethodsThis is a multi‐institutional retrospective case series of 6 patients with CIFS over 15 years. Patients’ medical comorbidities, imaging results, operative procedures, pathological findings including organisms identified, antimicrobial medications used, and outcomes were reviewed.ResultsThe mean time from onset of symptoms to diagnosis was 6 months. Cultures and fungal PCR identified Aspergillus species in every case. All 6 patients were found to have systemic comorbidities, with many being diabetic. Imaging findings ranged from thickening of sinus mucosa to invasion of the orbit and skull base. Treatment included long‐term antifungal therapy and conservative endoscopic surgery in all but 1 patient, who had an open approach. Every patient was free of invasive fungal disease at last follow‐up, with a range of 1 to 27 months.ConclusionCIFS is an insidious disease often with months between symptom onset and diagnosis. It is differentiated from chronic granulomatous invasive fungal sinusitis (CGIFS) by a lack of granulomas on histopathology and an association with diabetes mellitus. Endoscopic debridement combined with long‐term oral voriconazole was an effective treatment strategy in this series.