Download PDF
J Neurol Surg B Skull Base 2017; 78(01): 011-017
DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1583948
Original Article
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Complications of Open Approaches to the Skull Base in the Endoscopic Era

Justin D. Miller
1   Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States
,
Robert J. Taylor
2   Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, United States
,
Emily C. Ambrose
3   Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, University of Colorado, Denver, Colorado, United States
,
Jeffrey P. Laux
4   Translational and Clinical Sciences Institute, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States
,
Charles S. Ebert
1   Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States
,
Adam M. Zanation
1   Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

27 August 2015

27 March 2016

Publication Date:
02 June 2016 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective It is important to characterize the developing complication profile of the open approach as it becomes reserved for more complex disease during the endoscopic era. Our objective was to characterize complication rates of current open skull base surgery.

Design Retrospective chart review.

Setting Tertiary care center.

Participants The study group consisted of 103 patients and 117 open skull base surgeries were performed from 2008 to 2012.

Main Outcome Measures Intraoperative/postoperative complications.

Methods Fisher exact test and Wilcoxon rank sum test evaluated for associations of complications with potential risk factors.

Results Postoperative complications occurred in 53 (45%) cases, of which 36 (31%) were major complications. Malignancy, dural grafting, age, and obesity were not associated with complications. Flap reconstruction was associated with increased complication rates (odds ratio = 2.27; 95% confidence interval: 1.03–5.04).

Conclusion The open approach is increasingly utilized for only the most complex lesions, and selection bias cannot be overstated in comparative series. This study suggests that current open complication rates may be above those cited from prior studies, and patient and physician expectations should be adjusted accordingly.

Keywords

open approach - skull base - complications

Note

This study was performed at the University of North Carolina Hospitals, Chapel Hill, NC.


 

  • References

  • 1 Kassam A, Snyderman CH, Mintz A, Gardner P, Carrau RL. Expanded endonasal approach: the rostrocaudal axis. Part II. Posterior clinoids to the foramen magnum. Neurosurg Focus 2005; 19 (1) E4
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Kassam A, Snyderman CH, Mintz A, Gardner P, Carrau RL. Expanded endonasal approach: the rostrocaudal axis. Part I. Crista galli to the sella turcica. Neurosurg Focus 2005; 19 (1) E3
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Kassam AB, Gardner P, Snyderman C, Mintz A, Carrau R. Expanded endonasal approach: fully endoscopic, completely transnasal approach to the middle third of the clivus, petrous bone, middle cranial fossa, and infratemporal fossa. Neurosurg Focus 2005; 19 (1) E6
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Kassam AB, Snyderman C, Gardner P, Carrau R, Spiro R. The expanded endonasal approach: a fully endoscopic transnasal approach and resection of the odontoid process: technical case report. Neurosurgery 2005; 57 (1, Suppl): E213 , discussion E213
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Kassam AB, Thomas AJ, Zimmer LA , et al. Expanded endonasal approach: a fully endoscopic completely transnasal resection of a skull base arteriovenous malformation. Childs Nerv Syst 2007; 23 (5) 491-498
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Kassam AB, Vescan AD, Carrau RL , et al. Expanded endonasal approach: vidian canal as a landmark to the petrous internal carotid artery. J Neurosurg 2008; 108 (1) 177-183
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Ketcham AS, Wilkins RH, Vanburen JM, Smith RR. A combined intracranial facial approach to the paranasal sinuses. Am J Surg 1963; 106: 698-703
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Ketcham AS, Van Buren JM. Tumors of the paranasal sinuses: a therapeutic challenge. Am J Surg 1985; 150 (4) 406-413
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Richtsmeier WJ, Briggs RJ, Koch WM , et al. Complications and early outcome of anterior craniofacial resection. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1992; 118 (9) 913-917
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Kraus DH, Shah JP, Arbit E, Galicich JH, Strong EW. Complications of craniofacial resection for tumors involving the anterior skull base. Head Neck 1994; 16 (4) 307-312
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Patel SG, Singh B, Polluri A , et al. Craniofacial surgery for malignant skull base tumors: report of an international collaborative study. Cancer 2003; 98 (6) 1179-1187
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Eloy JA, Vivero RJ, Hoang K , et al. Comparison of transnasal endoscopic and open craniofacial resection for malignant tumors of the anterior skull base. Laryngoscope 2009; 119 (5) 834-840
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Dias FL, Sá GM, Kligerman J , et al. Complications of anterior craniofacial resection. Head Neck 1999; 21 (1) 12-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Germani RM, Vivero R, Herzallah IR, Casiano RR. Endoscopic reconstruction of large anterior skull base defects using acellular dermal allograft. Am J Rhinol 2007; 21 (5) 615-618
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Patel MR, Taylor RJ, Hackman TG , et al. Beyond the nasoseptal flap: outcomes and pearls with secondary flaps in endoscopic endonasal skull base reconstruction. Laryngoscope 2014; 124 (4) 846-852
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Greene FL, Page DL, Fleming ID , et al. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 6th ed. New York: Springer; 2002
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Edge SB, Compton CC. The American Joint Committee on Cancer: the 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual and the future of TNM. Ann Surg Oncol 2010; 17 (6) 1471-1474
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Kassam AB, Prevedello DM, Carrau RL , et al. Endoscopic endonasal skull base surgery: analysis of complications in the authors' initial 800 patients. J Neurosurg 2011; 114 (6) 1544-1568
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Janecka IP, Sen C, Sekhar LN , et al. Cranial base surgery: results in 183 patients (Reprinted from Otolaryngology-Head Neck-Surgery). J Neurooncol 1994; 20 (3) 281-289
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Solero CL, DiMeco F, Sampath P , et al. Combined anterior craniofacial resection for tumors involving the cribriform plate: early postoperative complications and technical considerations. Neurosurgery 2000; 47 (6) 1296-1304 , discussion 1304–1305
    Google Scholar
  • 21 O'Malley Jr BW, Janecka IP. Evolution of outcomes in cranial base surgery. Semin Surg Oncol 1995; 11 (3) 221-227
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Donald PJ. Complications in skull base surgery for malignancy. Laryngoscope 1999; 109 (12) 1959-1966
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Ganly I, Patel SG, Singh B , et al. Complications of craniofacial resection for malignant tumors of the skull base: report of an International Collaborative Study. Head Neck 2005; 27 (6) 445-451
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Irish JC, Gullane PJ, Gentili F , et al. Tumors of the skull base: outcome and survival analysis of 77 cases. Head Neck 1994; 16 (1) 3-10
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Janecka IP, Sen C, Sekhar LN , et al. Cranial base surgery: results in 183 patients. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1994; 110 (6) 539-546
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Wornom III IL, Neifeld JP, Mehrhof Jr AI, Young HF, Chinchilli VM. Closure of craniofacial defects after cancer resection. Am J Surg 1991; 162 (4) 408-411
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Zada G, Du R, Laws Jr ER. Defining the “edge of the envelope”: patient selection in treating complex sellar-based neoplasms via transsphenoidal versus open craniotomy. J Neurosurg 2011; 114 (2) 286-300
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Girod DA, McCulloch TM, Tsue TT, Weymuller Jr EA. Risk factors for complications in clean-contaminated head and neck surgical procedures. Head Neck 1995; 17 (1) 7-13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Ryan MW, Hochman M. Length of stay after free flap reconstruction of the head and neck. Laryngoscope 2000; 110 (2, Pt 1): 210-216
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Heyland DK, Cook DJ, Griffith L, Keenan SP, Brun-Buisson C ; The Canadian Critical Trials Group. The attributable morbidity and mortality of ventilator-associated pneumonia in the critically ill patient. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1999; 159 (4, Pt 1): 1249-1256
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Kroll SS, Evans GR, Goldberg D , et al. A comparison of resource costs for head and neck reconstruction with free and pectoralis major flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg 1997; 99 (5) 1282-1286
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar