Skull base repair following endonasal pituitary and skull base tumour resection: a systematic review

• Published in: Pituitary Vol. 24; no. 5; pp. 698 - 713
• Main Authors: Khan, Danyal Z., Ali, Ahmad M. S., Koh, Chan Hee, Dorward, Neil L., Grieve, Joan, Layard Horsfall, Hugo, Muirhead, William, Santarius, Thomas, Van Furth, Wouter R., Zamanipoor Najafabadi, Amir H., Marcus, Hani J.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York Springer US 01.10.2021; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Cerebrospinal fluid; Cerebrospinal Fluid Leak - etiology; Cerebrospinal Fluid Rhinorrhea; Endocrinology; Endoscopy; Fascia; Human Physiology; Humans; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Nose; Pituitary; Postoperative Complications; Reconstructive surgery; Retrospective Studies; Risk factors; Skull; Skull Base - surgery; Skull Base Neoplasms - surgery; Tumors; Cerebrospinal fluid leak; Endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery; Skull base surgery; CSF; Cerebrospinal fluid rhinorrhoea; Cerebrospinal fluid; Endoscopic endonasal
• ISSN: 1386-341X; 1573-7403; 1573-7403
• DOI: 10.1007/s11102-021-01145-4

Purpose 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.