Citations

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.

Abstract Introduction Transnasal access to the anterior skull base provides a minimally invasive approach for sellar and parasellar masses compared with its open counterparts. The unique microbiome of the sinonasal mucosa provides distinct challenges not encountered with other cranial approaches. The use of antibiotics in these cases has not been standardized, and data remain scarce regarding infectious outcomes. Methods We conducted a multicenter retrospective analysis of shared quality data points for the endoscopic endonasal approach (EEA) for pituitary adenomas, along with other sellar and parasellar region masses that were included by participating institutions. Patient and operative characteristics, perioperative and postoperative antibiotic regimens and their durations, intraoperative and postoperative cerebrospinal fluid leak, and onset of postoperative meningitis and sinusitis were compared. Results Fifteen institutions participated and provided 6 consecutive months' worth of case data. Five hundred ninety-three cases were included in the study, of which 564 were pituitary adenomectomies. The incidences of postoperative meningitis and sinusitis were low (0.67 and 2.87% for all pathologies, respectively; 0.35% meningitis for pituitary adenomas) and did not correlate with any specific antibiotic regimen. Immunocompromised status posed an increased odds of meningitis in pituitary adenomectomies (28.6, 95% confidence interval [1.72–474.4]). Conclusions The results show no clear benefit to postoperative antimicrobial use in EEA, with further larger studies needed.

OBJECTIVE Suprasellar meningioma resection via either the transcranial approach (TCA) or the endoscopic endonasal approach (EEA) is an area of controversy and active evaluation. Skull base surgeons increasingly consider patient-reported outcomes (PROs) when choosing an approach. No PRO measure currently exists to assess quality of life for suprasellar meningiomas. METHODS Adult patients undergoing suprasellar meningioma resection between 2013 and 2019 via EEA (n = 14) or TCA (n = 14) underwent semistructured interviews. Transcripts were coded using a grounded theory approach to identify themes as the basis for a PRO measure that includes all uniquely reported symptoms. To assess content validity, 32 patients and 15 surgeons used a Likert scale to rate the relevance of items on the resulting questionnaire and the general Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System–29 (PROMIS29). The mean scores were calculated for all items and compared for TCA versus EEA patient cohorts by using unpaired t-tests. Items on either questionnaire with mean scores ≥ 2.0 from patients were considered meaningful and were aggregated to form the novel Suprasellar Meningioma Patient-Reported Outcome Survey (SMPRO) instrument. RESULTS Qualitative analyses resulted in 55 candidate items. Relative to patients who underwent the EEA, those who underwent the TCA reported significantly worse future outlook before surgery (p = 0.01), tiredness from medications 2 weeks after surgery (p = 0.001), and word-finding and memory difficulties 3 months after surgery (p = 0.05 and < 0.001, respectively). The items that patients who received a TCA were most concerned about included medication-induced lethargy after surgery (2.9 ± 1.3), blurry vision before surgery (2.7 ± 1.5), and difficulty reading due to blurry vision before surgery (2.7 ± 2.7). Items that patients who received an EEA were most concerned about included blurry vision before surgery (3.5 ± 1.3), difficulty reading due to blurry vision before surgery (2.4 ± 1.3), and problems with smell postsurgery (2.9 ± 1.3). Although surgeons overall overestimated how concerned patients were about questionnaire items (p < 0.0005), the greatest discrepancies between patient and surgeon relevance scores were for blurry vision pre- and postoperatively (p < 0.001 and < 0.001, respectively) and problems with taste postoperatively (p < 0.001). Seventeen meningioma-specific items were considered meaningful, supplementing 8 significant PROMIS29 items to create the novel 25-item SMPRO. CONCLUSIONS The authors developed a disease- and approach-specific measure for suprasellar meningiomas to compare quality of life by operative approach. If demonstrated to be reliable and valid in future studies, this instrument may assist patients and providers in choosing a personalized surgical approach.

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.

ObjectiveThe objective is to describe variations in the otolaryngology morbidity and mortality (M&M) conference and to compare with other specialties.DesignCross‐sectional survey.SettingThe setting included otolaryngology departments across the United States and nonotolaryngology medical and surgical departments at 4 academic medical centers.Subjects and MethodsParticipants were members of a national otolaryngology quality/safety network and nonotolaryngology quality leaders at 4 large academic hospitals. Surveys were administered January 2017. Respondents described M&M conference practices, goals, and educational role.ResultsTwenty‐eight of 39 individuals representing 28 institutions completed the otolaryngology survey (72% response rate). Of 197 individuals, 60 (30% response rate) representing 11 surgical and 20 nonsurgical specialties completed the comparison survey. Twenty‐seven of 28 otolaryngologists (46 of 60 nonotolaryngologists) worked in academic settings. All otolaryngology programs conducted an M&M conference: 54% discussed all adverse events and errors; 32% used standard case selection processes; 70% used structured discussion, usually root cause analysis (64%); and 32% classified harm level. In comparison with other specialties, otolaryngology programs were more likely to discuss all adverse events and errors (P =. 01). Most conferences led to quality projects and intrainstitutional communication: 22% communicated to patients and families; 73% of respondents thought that M&M conferences should be standardized or use “best practices.” In both surveys, improving patient care was rated the conference’s most important function, followed by trainee education and culture change. Patient care and practice‐based learning were rated the most relevant Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Core Competencies in both surveys.ConclusionsAcademic otolaryngology M&M practices generally align with other specialties, but specifics vary widely, making collaborative quality improvement challenging. Educational and administrative priorities cross specialties. Most respondents thought that standardization and best practices are worthwhile. Nonacademic practice data are needed.