Purpose Postoperative cerebrospinal fluid rhinorrhoea (CSFR) remains a frequent complication of endonasal approaches to pituitary and skull base tumours. Watertight skull base reconstruction is... Show morePurpose Postoperative cerebrospinal fluid rhinorrhoea (CSFR) remains a frequent complication of endonasal approaches to pituitary and skull base tumours. Watertight skull base reconstruction is important in preventing CSFR. We sought to systematically review the current literature of available skull base repair techniques. Methods Pubmed and Embase databases were searched for studies (2000-2020) that (a) reported on the endonasal resection of pituitary and skull base tumours, (b) focussed on skull base repair techniques and/or postoperative CSFR risk factors, and (c) included CSFR data. Roles, advantages and disadvantages of each repair method were detailed. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed where possible. Results 193 studies were included. Repair methods were categorised based on function and anatomical level. There was absolute heterogeneity in repair methods used, with no independent studies sharing the same repair protocol. Techniques most commonly used for low CSFR risk cases were fat grafts, fascia lata grafts and synthetic grafts. For cases with higher CSFR risk, multilayer regimes were utilized with vascularized flaps, gasket sealing and lumbar drains. Lumbar drain use for high CSFR risk cases was supported by a randomised study (Oxford CEBM: Grade B recommendation), but otherwise there was limited high-level evidence. Pooled CSFR incidence by approach was 3.7% (CI 3-4.5%) for transsphenoidal, 9% (CI 7.2-11.3%) for expanded endonasal, and 5.3% (CI 3.4-7%) for studies describing both. Further meaningful meta-analyses of repair methods were not performed due to significant repair protocol heterogeneity. Conclusions Modern reconstructive protocols are heterogeneous and there is limited evidence to suggest the optimal repair technique after pituitary and skull base tumour resection. Further studies are needed to guide practice. Show less
Introduction The gold-standard treatment for symptomatic anterior skull base meningiomas is surgical resection. The endoscope-assisted supraorbital "keyhole" approach (eSKA) is a promising... Show moreIntroduction The gold-standard treatment for symptomatic anterior skull base meningiomas is surgical resection. The endoscope-assisted supraorbital "keyhole" approach (eSKA) is a promising technique for surgical resection of olfactory groove (OGM) and tuberculum sellae meningioma (TSM) but has yet to be compared with the microscopic transcranial (mTCA) and the expanded endoscopic endonasal approach (EEA) in the context of existing literature. Methods An updated study-level meta-analysis on surgical outcomes and complications of OGM and TSM operated with the eSKA, mTCA, and EEA was conducted using random-effect models. Results A total of 2285 articles were screened, yielding 96 studies (2191 TSM and 1510 OGM patients). In terms of effectiveness, gross total resection incidence was highest in mTCA (89.6% TSM, 91.1% OGM), followed by eSKA (85.2% TSM, 84.9% OGM) and EEA (83.9% TSM, 82.8% OGM). Additionally, the EEA group had the highest incidence of visual improvement (81.9% TSM, 54.6% OGM), followed by eSKA (65.9% TSM, 52.9% OGM) and mTCA (63.9% TSM, 45.7% OGM). However, in terms of safety, the EEA possessed the highest cerebrospinal fluid leak incidence (9.2% TSM, 14.5% OGM), compared with eSKA (2.1% TSM, 1.6% OGM) and mTCA (1.6% TSM, 6.5% OGM). Finally, mortality and intraoperative arterial injury were 1% or lower across all subgroups. Conclusions In the context of diverse study populations, the eSKA appeared not to be associated with increased adverse outcomes when compared with mTCA and EEA and offered comparable effectiveness. Case-selection is paramount in establishing a role for the eSKA in anterior skull base tumours. Show less
Lobatto, D.J.; Vlieland, T.P.M.V.; Hout, W.B. van den; Vries, F. de; Vries, A.F. de; Schutte, P.J.; ... ; Furth, W.R. van 2020
Objective Discharge policies concerning hospitalization after endoscopic pituitary tumor surgery are highly variable. A few studies support fast-track discharge; however, this is not commonplace.... Show moreObjective Discharge policies concerning hospitalization after endoscopic pituitary tumor surgery are highly variable. A few studies support fast-track discharge; however, this is not commonplace. Our goal was to report the transition to and evaluate the feasibility, safety, clinical- and patient-reported outcomes and costs of fast-track care in pituitary surgery. Methods This observational study included 155 patients undergoing pituitary surgery between December 2016 and December 2018. Fast-track care consisted of planned discharge 2-3 days after surgery, followed by daily surveillance by a case manager. All outcomes were compared with patients not eligible for fast-track discharge. The total group (fast-track and non-fast-track) was compared with historic controls (N = 307). Results A total of 79/155 patients (51%) were considered eligible for fast-track discharge, of whom 69 (87%) were discharged within 3 days. The total group was discharged more often within 3 days compared with historic controls (49 vs. 20%, p < 0.001), the total length of stay did not differ (5.3 vs. 5.7 days, p = 0.363). Although the total group had more readmissions compared with historic controls (17 vs. 10%, p = 0.002), no life-threatening complications occurred after discharge. On average, clinical- and patient-reported outcomes improved over time, both in the fast-track and non-fast-track groups. The mean overall costs within 30 days after surgery did not differ between the total group euro 9992 (SD euro 4562) and historic controls euro 9818 (SD euro 3488) (p = 0.649). Conclusion A stratified fast-track care trajectory with enhanced postoperative outpatient surveillance after pituitary tumor surgery is safe and feasible. As expected, costs of the fast-track were lower than the non-fast-track group, however we could not prove overall cost-effectiveness compared with the historic controls. Show less
Lobatto, D.J.; Vries, F. de; Najafabadi, A.H.Z.; Pereira, A.M.; Peul, W.C.; Vlieland, T.P.M.V.; ... ; Furth, W.R. van 2018
