Won, Tae‐Bin

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.

BackgroundThe International Frontal Sinus Anatomy Classification (IFAC) is an international consensus document published in 2016 to standardize the nomenclature of cells in the region of the frontal recess and frontal sinus. The IFAC was designed to be surgically relevant and anatomically precise. The current study was undertaken to assess the prevalence of the frontal cell variants as defined by the IFAC, as well as to determine the interrater reliability of the IFAC.MethodsThree independent reviewers examined triplanar nondiseased maxillofacial computed tomography (CT) scans to assess the anatomy of the frontal recess according to the IFAC system. The prevalence of each cell type was assessed and interrater reliability was measured using an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).ResultsOne hundred CT scans (200 sides) were examined. Of the 200 sides, 96.5% contained an agger nasi cell (ICC, 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77‐0.86), 30.0% contained a supra agger cell (ICC, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.86‐0.92), 20.0% contained a supra agger frontal cell (ICC 0.80; 95% CI 0.74‐0.84), 72.0% contained a supra bulla cell (ICC, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.76‐0.85), 5.5% contained a supra bulla frontal cell (ICC, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.63‐0.77), 28.5% contained a supraorbital ethmoid cell (ICC, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.72‐0.83), and 30.0% contained a frontal septal cell (ICC, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.74‐0.84). The ICC was good to excellent for identification of all frontal cell types.ConclusionsThis study describes the normative distribution of frontal recess cells in a nondiseased population according to IFAC and demonstrates favorable interrater reliability of the classification system.