The Minimal Clinically Important Difference of the Anterior Skull Base Nasal Inventory-12

Multi-center study on sellar reconstruction after endoscopic transsphenoidal pituitary surgery

INTRODUCTION

Surgical techniques for sellar reconstruction include no reconstruction, use of synthetic materials, autologous grafts, and/or vascularized flaps. The aim of this study was to conduct a multi-center study comparing the efficacy and postoperative morbidity associated with different sellar reconstruction techniques.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of patients who underwent endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery for pituitary tumors from five participating sites between January 2021 and March 2023 was performed. The variables included demographics, tumor characteristics, reconstruction technique, postoperative cerebrospinal fluid leak (CSF) leak, and 22-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) scores. Comparisons of postoperative complications, SNOT-22 scores, and duration of surgery by type of onlay reconstruction were evaluated using Fisher's exact test, analysis of variance, and Kruskal‒Wallis test.

RESULTS

Five hundred and one patients were identified. The median tumor size was 2.1 cm, and 64% were non-functioning. Intraoperative CSF leak was identified in 38% of patients. A total of 89% of patients underwent onlay reconstruction: 49% were reconstructed with mucosal grafts, 35% with nasoseptal flaps, and 5% with other onlay techniques. Nasoseptal flaps were utilized more frequently in the setting of giant pituitary adenomas (>3 cm), medial cavernous sinus wall resection, and high-flow intraoperative CSF leaks. Cases who utilized mucosal grafts had an overall shorter operating time (median: 183 min vs. 240 min; p < 0.001). Five postoperative CSF leaks were identified, and therefore, statistical analysis could not be performed for this complication.

CONCLUSION

The effectiveness and morbidity of different sellar reconstruction techniques are comparable. Vascularized flaps were utilized more frequently in the setting of larger tumors and high-flow intraoperative CSF leaks.

Quality of Life Considerations in Endoscopic Endonasal Management of Anterior Cranial Base Tumors

Considering quality of life (QOL) is critical when discussing treatment options for patients undergoing endoscopic endonasal skull base surgery (EESBS) for cancers at the base of the skull. Several questionnaires have been developed and validated in the last 20 years to explore QOL in this patient population, including the Anterior Skull Base Questionnaire, Skull Base Inventory, EESBS Questionnaire, and the Sino-Nasal Outcome Test for Neurosurgery. The Sino-Nasal Outcomes Test-22 and Anterior Skull Base Nasal Inventory-12 are other tools that have been used to measure sinonasal QOL in anterior cranial base surgery. In addition to pathology-related perturbations in QOL endoscopic surgical options (transsellar approaches, anterior cranial base surgery, and various reconstructive techniques) all have unique morbidities and QOL implications that should be considered. Finally, we look ahead to new and emerging techniques and tools aimed to help preserve and improve QOL for patients with anterior cranial base malignancies.

Skull Base Registries: A Roadmap

Hospitals, payors, and patients increasingly expect us to report our outcomes in more detail and to justify our treatment decisions and costs. Although there are many stakeholders in surgical outcomes, physicians must take the lead role in defining how outcomes are assessed. Skull base lesions interact with surrounding anatomy to produce a complex spectrum of presentations and surgical challenges, requiring a wide variety of surgical approaches. Moreover, many skull base lesions are relatively rare. These factors and others often preclude the use of prospective randomized clinical trials, thus necessitating alternate methods of scientific inquiry. In this paper, we propose a roadmap for implementing a skull base registry, along with expected benefits and challenges.

Postoperative Oral Antibiotics and Sinonasal Outcomes Following Endoscopic Transsphenoidal Surgery for Pituitary Tumors Study: A Multicenter, Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Study

BACKGROUND

Postoperative prophylactic antibiotics are commonly used in pituitary surgery, but evidence supporting their use is lacking, which has implications for antibiotic stewardship.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether receipt of postoperative oral antibiotics results in superior sinonasal quality of life (QOL) compared with placebo among patients who undergo endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal pituitary surgery.

METHODS

Patients were randomized to receive either oral placebo or cefdinir (trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole in patients intolerant to cefdinir) for 7 d after surgery. They were monitored for 12 wk. The primary outcome measure was sinonasal QOL at 2 wk on the Anterior Skull Base Nasal Inventory-12. Supplementary end points included sinonasal QOL reported on the Sinonasal Outcome Test-22 and objective endoscopy scores to assess nasal healing according to the Lund-Kennedy method.

RESULTS

A total of 461 patients were screened, 131 were randomized, and 113 (placebo arm: 55; antibiotic arm: 58) were analyzed. There was no clinically meaningful or statistically significant difference in sinonasal QOL at any measured time point (P ≥ .24) using either instrument. Nasal cavity endoscopy scores were not significantly different at 1 to 2 wk after surgery (P = .25) or at 3 to 4 wk after surgery (P = .08).

CONCLUSION

Postoperative prophylactic oral antibiotics did not result in superior sinonasal QOL compared with placebo among patients who underwent standard endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery.

Assessment of the Validity of the Sinonasal Outcomes Test-22 in Pituitary Surgery: A Multicenter Prospective Trial

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

Sinonasal Outcomes Test-22 (SNOT-22) is used widely as a patient-reported sinonasal quality-of-life (QOL) instrument for endoscopic endonasal pituitary surgery. However, it has never been validated in this population. This study explores the psychometric validity of SNOT-22 to determine if it is a valid scale in patients undergoing endoscopic pituitary surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

Multicenter prospective trial.

METHODS

Adult patients (n = 113) with pituitary tumors undergoing endoscopic surgery were enrolled in a multicenter study. Patient-reported QOL was assessed using SNOT-22 and the Anterior Skull Base Nasal Inventory-12. Face validity, internal consistency, responsiveness to clinical change, test-retest reliability, and concurrent validity were determined using standard statistical methods.

RESULTS

Internal consistency using Cronbach's alpha at baseline and 2 weeks postoperatively were 0.911 and 0.922, indicating SNOT-22 performed well as a single construct. Mean QOL scores were significantly worse at 2 weeks than baseline (16.4 ± 15.1 vs. 23.1 ± 16.4, P < .001), indicating the scale is responsive to clinical change. However, only 11/22 items demonstrated significant changes in mean scores at 2 weeks. Correlation between scores at 2 and 3 weeks was high, suggesting good test-retest reliability, r(107) = 0.75, P < .001. Factor analysis suggests the five-factor solution proposed for the SNOT-22 in rhinosinusitis patients is not valid in pituitary surgery patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The SNOT-22 is a valid QOL instrument in patients undergoing endoscopic pituitary surgery. However, because it includes 22 items, can be applied only as a single construct, 50% of the items do not demonstrate changes after surgery, and is not as sensitive to change as other scales, shorter instruments developed specifically for this patient population may be preferable.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II Laryngoscope, 2021.

Impact of Routine Endoscopic Skull Base Surgery on Subjective Olfaction and Gustation Outcomes

BACKGROUND

As endoscopic endonasal skull base surgery (EESBS) for sellar pathology has become routine, there is increasing awareness of quality-of-life (QOL) outcomes related to this approach. Similarly, there is a growing interest in postoperative chemosensory function, with notable emphasis on olfaction and the corresponding psychosocial implications of olfactory dysfunction. Meanwhile, there has been minimal direct investigation into gustatory outcomes, and the association between these 2 chemosensory functions remains poorly understood.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate patient-reported chemosensory function and rhinologic-specific QOL following EESBS for routine sellar pathologies.

METHODS

Comprehensive clinical characteristics and sinonasal QOL assessments, measured using Anterior Skull Base Nasal Inventory-12 (ASK Nasal-12), were collected from 46 patients undergoing EESBS for sellar pathology.

RESULTS

Forty-six patients were included: 65.2% female, average age 52.8 yr (range: 27-89). The most common pathology was nonfunctioning pituitary adenoma (n = 28). Preoperative ASK Nasal-12 scores (mean = 0.81) demonstrated postoperative worsening at 2 wk (mean = 2.52, P < .0001) and 1 mo (mean = 1.33, P = .0031), with no difference at 3 mo postoperatively (mean = 0.89, P = .92). Meanwhile, there was significant worsening of preoperative subjective smell (mean = 0.62) and taste function (mean = 0.42) at 2 wk (mean = 3.48, P < .0001; mean = 2.69, P < .0001) and 1 mo (mean = 2.40, P < .0001; mean = 2.03, P < .0001) postoperatively, which persisted at approximately 3 mo postoperatively (mean = 1.26, P = .04; mean = 1.15, P = .0059).

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing EESBS for sellar pathologies experience anticipated, temporary disruptions in sinonasal QOL but may have longer lasting perturbations in subjective olfaction and gustation. Given the increasing use of the endoscopic endonasal corridor, further investigation in postoperative chemosensory function is essential.

How is the minimal clinically important difference established in health-related quality of life instruments? Review of anchors and methods

Background

The aim of this systematic review is to describe the different types of anchors and statistical methods used in estimating the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) for Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) instruments.

Methods

PubMed and Google scholar were searched for English and French language studies published from 2010 to 2018 using selected keywords. We included original articles (reviews, meta-analysis, commentaries and research letters were not considered) that described anchors and statistical methods used to estimate the MCID in HRQoL instruments.

Results

Forty-seven papers satisfied the inclusion criteria. The MCID was estimated for 6 generic and 18 disease-specific instruments. Most studies in our review used anchor-based methods (n = 41), either alone or in combination with distribution-based methods. The most common applied anchors were non-clinical, from the viewpoint of patients. Different statistical methods for anchor-based methods were applied and the Change Difference (CD) was the most used one. Most distributional methods included 0.2 standard deviations (SD), 0.3 SD, 0.5 SD and 1 standard error of measurement (SEM). MCID values were very variable depending on methods applied, and also on clinical context of the study.

Conclusion

Multiple anchors and methods were applied in the included studies, which lead to different estimations of MCID. Using several methods enables to assess the robustness of the results. This corresponds to a sensitivity analysis of the methods. Close collaboration between statisticians and clinicians is recommended to integrate an agreement regarding the appropriate method to determine MCID for a specific context.