International forum of allergy & rhinology · 2015
Perforation of a nasoseptal flap does not increase the rate of postoperative cerebrospinal fluid leak.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Huntley Colin, Iloreta Alfred Marc Calo, Nyquist Gurston G, Otten Marc, Garcia Hermes, Farrell Christopher, Rosen Marc R, Evans James J
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The nasoseptal flap (NSF) has been shown to be a valuable addition to the reconstructive armamentarium of the endoscopic skull-base surgeon. We aimed to evaluate the rate of postoperative cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak after use of a NSF that had a small tear during harvest.
METHODS: After Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, we analyzed our database of patients undergoing skull-base resection. We included all patients who had a NSF reconstruction, septoplasty, and/or spur on preoperative computed tomography (CT) imaging. We then evaluated video of each procedure to determine if a tear occurred in the NSF during harvest. Patient records were reviewed to determine if a postoperative CSF leak occurred.
RESULTS: We evaluated video of 21 patients who underwent a skull-base resection, were reconstructed with a NSF, and had either a septoplasty or evidence of a septal spur on CT imaging. Of these 21 cases, 11 small tears occurred during harvest of the NSF flap and none of the patients with a torn NSF had a postoperative CSF leak.
CONCLUSION: Our series shows a 0% postoperative CSF leak rate in patients undergoing skull-base reconstruction with a NSF that was torn during harvest. Small tears in the NSF do not seem to affect postoperative CSF leak rates.
METHODS: After Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, we analyzed our database of patients undergoing skull-base resection. We included all patients who had a NSF reconstruction, septoplasty, and/or spur on preoperative computed tomography (CT) imaging. We then evaluated video of each procedure to determine if a tear occurred in the NSF during harvest. Patient records were reviewed to determine if a postoperative CSF leak occurred.
RESULTS: We evaluated video of 21 patients who underwent a skull-base resection, were reconstructed with a NSF, and had either a septoplasty or evidence of a septal spur on CT imaging. Of these 21 cases, 11 small tears occurred during harvest of the NSF flap and none of the patients with a torn NSF had a postoperative CSF leak.
CONCLUSION: Our series shows a 0% postoperative CSF leak rate in patients undergoing skull-base reconstruction with a NSF that was torn during harvest. Small tears in the NSF do not seem to affect postoperative CSF leak rates.