Repair of the sellar floor using bioresorbable polydioxanone foils after endoscopic endonasal pituitary surgery

Tissue Sealant Impact on Skull Base Reconstruction Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Despite significant advances in understanding of skull base reconstruction principles, the role of tissue sealants in modifying postoperative cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak outcomes remains controversial. We evaluate postoperative CSF leak incidence associated with tissue sealant use in skull base defect repair during endoscopic skull base surgery (ESBS).

DATA SOURCES

Web of Science, PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library.

REVIEW METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis of risk differences (RD). A search strategy identified original studies reporting CSF leakage following ESBS with disaggregation by tissue sealant use and/or type.

RESULTS

27 non-randomized studies (n = 2,403) were included for qualitative and meta-analysis. Reconstruction with a tissue sealant did not significantly reduce postoperative CSF leak risk compared with reconstruction without sealant (RD[95% CI] = 0.02[-0.01, 0.05]). Sub-analyses of dural sealant (-0.02[-0.11, 0.07]) and fibrin glue (0.00[-0.07, 0.07]) compared with no sealant were similarly unremarkable. Postoperative CSF leakage was not significantly modulated in further sub-analyses of DuraSeal (0.02[-0.02, 0.05]), Adherus (-0.03[-0.08, 0.03]), or Bioglue (-0.06[-0.23, 0.12]) versus no dural sealant use, or Tisseel/Tissucol versus fibrin glue nonuse (0.00[-0.05, 0.05]). No significant association was seen comparing dural sealant use versus fibrin glue use on pairwise (0.01[-0.03, 0.05]) or network meta-analysis (-0.01[-0.05, 0.04]). Limitations in source literature prevented sub-analyses stratified by leak characteristics, defect size and location, and accompanying reconstruction materials.

CONCLUSION

Tissue sealant use did not appear to impact postoperative CSF leak incidence when compared with nonuse. Higher quality studies are warranted to thoroughly elucidate the clinical value of adjunct sealant use in endoscopic skull base reconstruction.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

N/A Laryngoscope, 134:3425-3436, 2024.

Sellar Floor Reconstruction with and without Intrasellar Fat Packing after Endoscopic Resection of Large Pituitary Macroadenomas with Evident Intraoperative CSF Leak

Background Intraoperative cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak is not uncommon with endoscopic transsphenoidal surgical excision of pituitary macroadenomas. How to seal the defect and prevent postoperative leak is still a matter of debate.

Objectives In patients with CSF leak, we tried to figure out which is more important in preventing postoperative leak, is it the sellar fat packing, is it tight repair of the sellar floor, or do we need to combine them both?

Patients and Methods Over 5 years, in patients with evident intraoperative CSF leak, with growing experience supported by positive postoperative results, we shifted gradually from intrasellar packing using combined fat graft and bioabsorbable materials (SURGICEL FIBRILLAR/Gelfoam) (group A, n =15) to only bioabsorbable materials (group B, n = 18), either of which is followed by tight repair of the sellar floor.

Results Postoperative clinical assessment did not differ significantly between both groups at early, midterm, and long-term follow-up intervals. We did not have any patients with delayed postoperative CSF leak or symptomatic empty sella syndrome (ESS).

Conclusion There is no difference in the incidence of postoperative CSF leak and clinical ESS among both groups, indicating that tight sellar floor repair is more important than packing the sellar cavity with or without fat graft.

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

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.