Outcomes of Autologous versus Synthetic Inlay Grafts After Skull Base Reconstruction for High-Flow Defects: A Multicenter Case-Control Analysis

IF 6.8 2区 医学 Q1 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology Pub Date : 2024-12-30 DOI:10.1002/alr.23509
Theodore V. Nguyen, Arash Abiri, Victoria Idowu, Saawan Patel, Thomas Truong, David K. Lerner, Alan D. Workman, Pete S. Batra, Raewyn G. Campbell, John R. Craig, Dana L. Crosby, Jennifer E. Douglas, Jacob G. Eide, Michael A. Kohanski, Rijul S. Kshirsagar, Tran B. Locke, Peter Papagiannopoulos, Bobby A. Tajudeen, Charles C. L. Tong, Nithin D. Adappa, James N. Palmer, Edward C. Kuan
{"title":"Outcomes of Autologous versus Synthetic Inlay Grafts After Skull Base Reconstruction for High-Flow Defects: A Multicenter Case-Control Analysis","authors":"Theodore V. Nguyen,&nbsp;Arash Abiri,&nbsp;Victoria Idowu,&nbsp;Saawan Patel,&nbsp;Thomas Truong,&nbsp;David K. Lerner,&nbsp;Alan D. Workman,&nbsp;Pete S. Batra,&nbsp;Raewyn G. Campbell,&nbsp;John R. Craig,&nbsp;Dana L. Crosby,&nbsp;Jennifer E. Douglas,&nbsp;Jacob G. Eide,&nbsp;Michael A. Kohanski,&nbsp;Rijul S. Kshirsagar,&nbsp;Tran B. Locke,&nbsp;Peter Papagiannopoulos,&nbsp;Bobby A. Tajudeen,&nbsp;Charles C. L. Tong,&nbsp;Nithin D. Adappa,&nbsp;James N. Palmer,&nbsp;Edward C. Kuan","doi":"10.1002/alr.23509","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The most well-known risk related to endoscopic skull base surgery (ESBS) is a postoperative cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak, which, if untreated, portends a risk of meningitis. Literature has shown that the risk of postoperative CSF leaks range greatly from 8 to 33% with factors such as BMI, defect location, and type of reconstruction affecting outcomes [<span>1, 2</span>]. As such, skull base reconstruction after ESBS is necessary to create a watertight seal to prevent communication between the sterile subdural CSF space and the contaminated sinonasal tract.</p><p>For large, high-flow dural defects, multilayer reconstruction with inlay (subdural or epidural) and onlay flaps and grafts remains the gold standard [<span>3, 4</span>]. Specifically for inlay grafts, surgeons may choose to use autologous grafts (those originating from the patient, e.g., fascia lata or fat) or synthetic grafts (commercially available, man-made or processed grafts, e.g., collagen matrix) [<span>5</span>]. A previous systematic review and meta-analysis by our group has shown that CSF leak rates are comparable for reconstructions utilizing either graft type; however, the studies included in the analysis had small sample sizes or were single-institutional, with no head-to-head comparisons [<span>6</span>].</p><p>The present multicenter study compares postoperative CSF leak rates following skull base reconstruction utilizing either autologous and synthetic inlay grafts in patients undergoing ESBS with high-flow intraoperative CSF leaks.</p><p>A total of 210 ESBS patients (57.6% female) with an average age of 54.0 ± 15.1 years were included for analysis. The most common pathologies were pituitary adenoma (27.6%), meningioma (25.2%), and craniopharyngioma (19.0%). The average defect size was 296.87 ± 239.15 mm<sup>2</sup> (range: 24.00–1289.60 mm<sup>2</sup>). A total of 110 (60.1%) patients had inlay reconstructions exclusively utilizing synthetic grafts and 187 (89.0%) patients had a NSF used for reconstruction. 108 (51.4%) of patients had a lumbar drain placed. Additionally, the most common dural sealant type was Adherus (82 patients; 40.5%) and the most common packing type was matrix/xeroform/strip gauze (122 patients; 58.1%). A total of 20 (9.6%) patients experienced a postoperative CSF leak and 6 (3.8%) developed meningitis. Demographic and treatment data are tabulated in Table 1.</p><p>Following PSM and controlling for defect site and size, pathology, and NSF use, there was no difference on Fisher's exact test in postoperative CSF leak rates between autologous (three out of 28; 10.7%) versus synthetic (one out of 28; 3.6%) inlay reconstructions (<i>p</i> = 0.611), which was further confirmed to be noncontributory on multivariate logistic regression (OR: 0.486, 95% CI: 0.075–2.233; Table 2).</p><p>Herein, it was shown that, for patients with a high-flow intraoperative CSF leak following tumor resection, those that underwent skull base reconstruction with synthetic grafts, when compared with autologous grafts, had no significant differences in postoperative CSF leak rates, even controlling for defect and other risk factors. The results must be interpreted in the context of most reconstructions utilizing NSF, a relatively low matched subcohort (<i>n</i> = 28/group), and an overall low event rate (&lt;10%) [<span>7</span>].</p><p>This is the largest multi-institutional study comparing postoperative CSF leak rates between different inlay materials, with adequate granularity of data. Previous systematic review and meta-analysis of 16 studies by our group explored the rates of postoperative CSF leak and meningitis with autologous and synthetic inlay reconstruction, with only one study having a level of evidence of 2 and low sample size (<i>n</i> = 32) [<span>6</span>]. Another systematic review also explored different reconstructive strategies and associated outcomes, but at the same time showcased the heterogeneity of techniques utilized [<span>8</span>].</p><p>Ultimately, this study showed that the rate of postoperative CSF leaks was not different among autologous and synthetic inlay grafts, especially with most cases also using a NSF. This highlights the importance of meticulous technique as opposed to specific tissue type, as there were comparable rates of reconstructive success between grafting material. Additionally, surgeons must consider the availability and the financial cost of synthetic materials, which must be balanced with donor site morbidity in autologous grafts [<span>9, 10</span>].</p><p>N. D. A. and J. N. P. are associated with Acclarent, Optinose, and 3-D Matrix. E. C. K. is a consultant for Stryker and 3-D Matrix and receives royalties from Springer.</p>","PeriodicalId":13716,"journal":{"name":"International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology","volume":"15 4","pages":"441-444"},"PeriodicalIF":6.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/alr.23509","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/alr.23509","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The most well-known risk related to endoscopic skull base surgery (ESBS) is a postoperative cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak, which, if untreated, portends a risk of meningitis. Literature has shown that the risk of postoperative CSF leaks range greatly from 8 to 33% with factors such as BMI, defect location, and type of reconstruction affecting outcomes [1, 2]. As such, skull base reconstruction after ESBS is necessary to create a watertight seal to prevent communication between the sterile subdural CSF space and the contaminated sinonasal tract.

For large, high-flow dural defects, multilayer reconstruction with inlay (subdural or epidural) and onlay flaps and grafts remains the gold standard [3, 4]. Specifically for inlay grafts, surgeons may choose to use autologous grafts (those originating from the patient, e.g., fascia lata or fat) or synthetic grafts (commercially available, man-made or processed grafts, e.g., collagen matrix) [5]. A previous systematic review and meta-analysis by our group has shown that CSF leak rates are comparable for reconstructions utilizing either graft type; however, the studies included in the analysis had small sample sizes or were single-institutional, with no head-to-head comparisons [6].

The present multicenter study compares postoperative CSF leak rates following skull base reconstruction utilizing either autologous and synthetic inlay grafts in patients undergoing ESBS with high-flow intraoperative CSF leaks.

A total of 210 ESBS patients (57.6% female) with an average age of 54.0 ± 15.1 years were included for analysis. The most common pathologies were pituitary adenoma (27.6%), meningioma (25.2%), and craniopharyngioma (19.0%). The average defect size was 296.87 ± 239.15 mm2 (range: 24.00–1289.60 mm2). A total of 110 (60.1%) patients had inlay reconstructions exclusively utilizing synthetic grafts and 187 (89.0%) patients had a NSF used for reconstruction. 108 (51.4%) of patients had a lumbar drain placed. Additionally, the most common dural sealant type was Adherus (82 patients; 40.5%) and the most common packing type was matrix/xeroform/strip gauze (122 patients; 58.1%). A total of 20 (9.6%) patients experienced a postoperative CSF leak and 6 (3.8%) developed meningitis. Demographic and treatment data are tabulated in Table 1.

Following PSM and controlling for defect site and size, pathology, and NSF use, there was no difference on Fisher's exact test in postoperative CSF leak rates between autologous (three out of 28; 10.7%) versus synthetic (one out of 28; 3.6%) inlay reconstructions (p = 0.611), which was further confirmed to be noncontributory on multivariate logistic regression (OR: 0.486, 95% CI: 0.075–2.233; Table 2).

Herein, it was shown that, for patients with a high-flow intraoperative CSF leak following tumor resection, those that underwent skull base reconstruction with synthetic grafts, when compared with autologous grafts, had no significant differences in postoperative CSF leak rates, even controlling for defect and other risk factors. The results must be interpreted in the context of most reconstructions utilizing NSF, a relatively low matched subcohort (n = 28/group), and an overall low event rate (<10%) [7].

This is the largest multi-institutional study comparing postoperative CSF leak rates between different inlay materials, with adequate granularity of data. Previous systematic review and meta-analysis of 16 studies by our group explored the rates of postoperative CSF leak and meningitis with autologous and synthetic inlay reconstruction, with only one study having a level of evidence of 2 and low sample size (n = 32) [6]. Another systematic review also explored different reconstructive strategies and associated outcomes, but at the same time showcased the heterogeneity of techniques utilized [8].

Ultimately, this study showed that the rate of postoperative CSF leaks was not different among autologous and synthetic inlay grafts, especially with most cases also using a NSF. This highlights the importance of meticulous technique as opposed to specific tissue type, as there were comparable rates of reconstructive success between grafting material. Additionally, surgeons must consider the availability and the financial cost of synthetic materials, which must be balanced with donor site morbidity in autologous grafts [9, 10].

N. D. A. and J. N. P. are associated with Acclarent, Optinose, and 3-D Matrix. E. C. K. is a consultant for Stryker and 3-D Matrix and receives royalties from Springer.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
自体与合成植入骨在颅底重建后治疗高血流缺陷的结果:一项多中心病例-对照分析。
与内窥镜颅底手术(ESBS)相关的最广为人知的风险是术后脑脊液(CSF)泄漏,如果不及时治疗,则预示着脑膜炎的风险。文献显示,术后脑脊液漏的风险在8% ~ 33%之间,BMI、缺损位置、重建类型等因素影响预后[1,2]。因此,ESBS后颅底重建是必要的,以建立一个水密密封,以防止无菌硬膜下脑脊液空间与被污染的鼻窦道之间的通信。对于大的、高流量的硬脑膜缺损,采用嵌体(硬膜下或硬膜外)和嵌体皮瓣和移植物进行多层重建仍然是金标准[3,4]。特别是对于植入移植物,外科医生可以选择使用自体移植物(来自患者的移植物,如阔筋膜或脂肪)或合成移植物(市售的、人造的或加工过的移植物,如胶原基质)。我们小组之前的系统回顾和荟萃分析表明,使用两种移植物重建的脑脊液泄漏率是相当的;然而,分析中包括的研究样本量小或单一机构,没有进行正面比较。本多中心研究比较了ESBS患者术中高流量脑脊液泄漏的颅底重建后自体和人工植入移植物的脑脊液泄漏率。共210例ESBS患者(女性57.6%),平均年龄54.0±15.1岁。最常见的病理为垂体腺瘤(27.6%)、脑膜瘤(25.2%)和颅咽管瘤(19.0%)。平均缺陷尺寸为296.87±239.15 mm2(范围:24.00-1289.60 mm2)。共有110例(60.1%)患者仅使用合成移植物进行嵌体重建,187例(89.0%)患者使用NSF进行重建。108例(51.4%)患者放置腰椎引流管。此外,最常见的硬脑膜密封剂类型是阿贴士(82例);40.5%),最常见的填充物类型为基质/干状/条状纱布(122例);58.1%)。共有20例(9.6%)患者发生术后脑脊液漏,6例(3.8%)发生脑膜炎。人口统计和治疗数据见表1。采用PSM并控制缺陷部位和大小、病理和NSF的使用,在Fisher精确测试中,自体(28例中有3例;10.7%)与合成(1 / 28;3.6%)嵌体重建(p = 0.611),进一步证实了多因素logistic回归(OR: 0.486, 95% CI: 0.075-2.233;表2)。本研究表明,对于肿瘤切除术后术中发生高流量脑脊液漏的患者,在控制了缺陷等危险因素的情况下,采用合成骨移植颅底重建与自体骨移植相比,术后脑脊液漏率无显著差异。结果必须在大多数使用NSF的重建,相对低匹配的亚队列(n = 28/组)和总体低事件发生率(<10%)[7]的背景下解释。这是比较不同嵌体材料术后脑脊液泄漏率的最大的多机构研究,数据粒度足够。本小组先前对16项研究进行系统回顾和荟萃分析,探讨了自体和合成嵌体重建术后脑脊液泄漏和脑膜炎的发生率,其中只有一项研究的证据水平为2,样本量低(n = 32)。另一项系统综述也探讨了不同的重建策略和相关结果,但同时显示了bbb使用的技术的异质性。最终,本研究表明,自体和合成植入体移植术后脑脊液泄漏率没有差异,特别是大多数病例也使用NSF。这突出了细致技术的重要性,而不是特定的组织类型,因为移植材料之间的重建成功率相当。此外,外科医生必须考虑合成材料的可用性和经济成本,这必须与自体移植物的供体部位发病率相平衡[9,10]。D. A.和J. N. P.与Acclarent、Optinose和3-D Matrix有关。E. C. K.是Stryker和3-D Matrix的顾问,从b施普林格获得版税。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
11.70
自引率
10.90%
发文量
185
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: International Forum of Allergy & Rhinologyis a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and the Official Journal of the American Rhinologic Society and the American Academy of Otolaryngic Allergy. International Forum of Allergy Rhinology provides a forum for clinical researchers, basic scientists, clinicians, and others to publish original research and explore controversies in the medical and surgical treatment of patients with otolaryngic allergy, rhinologic, and skull base conditions. The application of current research to the management of otolaryngic allergy, rhinologic, and skull base diseases and the need for further investigation will be highlighted.
期刊最新文献
Response to "Comment on 'Dupilumab Beyond the Airway: Decreased Morbidity in a Real-World Analysis'". Comment on "Dupilumab Beyond the Airway: Decreased Morbidity in a Real-World Analysis". Dupilumab-Related Adverse Events and Intolerance in Aspirin-Exacerbated Respiratory Disease Patients. Endoscopic Posterior Nasal Neurectomy Versus Radiofrequency Ablation in Refractory Allergic Rhinitis: A 2-Year Randomized Controlled Trial of Clinical Outcomes and Immunomodulatory Responses. Effect of Laser Posterior Nasal Neurolysis for the Treatment of Chronic Rhinitis: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1