Critical Care 2019: Approaches to the anterior skull base- Muhammad Alvi- Newcastle University Teaching Hospital, UK

Abstract:

Neoplasms of the skull base represent a significant challenge for surgical management. They are rare and include a variety of histological subtypes. By definition these tumors exist at the interface between the intra and extra-cranial space and therefore are adjacent to critical structures. Skull base surgery is a recent entity. The first description of a craniofacial approach in the literature dates from Ketcham, et al. 1963 describing a combined transfacial approach. The principles of this initial strategy have undergone modifications over the years to minimize morbidity and brain handling whilst achieving disease free-margins. The goal remains en-bloc resection. The open approach to resection of these neoplasms remains the gold standard. Improvements in neuroimaging, microvascular reconstructive options and surgical techniques have established Craniofacial Surgery (CFS) as a safe and effective treatment. Approaches to the skull base include a subcranial approach and a frontal/transfacial approach. A multidisciplinary should include a neurosurgeon and an otolaryngologist due to the extra and intra-cranial considerations when exposing the skull base. The choice of approach depends on the location of the tumor as well as expertise and experience of the surgeon. Aesthetic considerations on the patient’s part will also play a role. This review will begin with a brief consideration of the diff errant tumors of this region, including common routes of spread for these tumor subtypes. This will be followed by a discussion of clinical findings and imaging modalities. Finally there will be a description of the different surgical approaches used for treatment.

Endorsement of this examination was gotten through the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary (MEEI) Institutional Review Board. Careful databases from the Cranial Base Center at MEEI were cross examined for all instances of foremost skull base medical procedure performed for the sign of front skull base or paranasal sinus malignancies from May 2007 through May 2014. Charging records were questioned for CPT codes identifying with sinonasal and skull base neoplasms to guarantee fulfillment. Patients with favorable neoplasms and patients with sinonasal danger that didn't include the skull base were prohibited from the examination. Patients were isolated into bunches dependent on careful methodology. Utilizing employable reports, the careful methodology was recorded as either endonasal endoscopic (EEA; endoscopic methodology without craniotomy or transfacial entry point), or cranioendoscopic (CEA; endoscopic methodology with craniotomy, however without transfacial cut), or an "open craniofacial" approach (transfacial approach, with or without craniotomy). The endoscopic and craniotomy bits of the CEA approach were done in a concurrent, as opposed to arranged, way. Orbital association was characterized as intrusion of the orbital fat, and in all cases brought about orbital exenteration; cases with tumor inclusion just of the periorbita brought about saving of the eye. Similarly, intradural inclusion was characterized as attack through the dura; cases with tumor neighboring the dura were not considered intradural. In all cases, the objective of medical procedure was gross absolute resection. Patients who didn't experience careful treatment were rejected. Segment data, clinical comorbidities, past treatment information, and tumor attributes were gathered from the emergency clinic's electronic and paper clinical records. Preoperative arranging was surveyed dependent on imaging, utilizing the adjusted Dulguerov TNM organizing for esthesioneuroblastoma and AJCC organizing framework for other nasal pit and paranasal sinus pathology where applicable.18 19 Records were looked into exclusively for postoperative intricacies, including CSF spill, diplopia, vision changes, intracranial disease, sinocutaneous fistula, mucocele, skin breakdown, and incessant rhinosinusitis. Results including follow-up period, repeat, and endurance were additionally recorded.

Information was broke down with Microsoft Excel (rendition 12.1.0, Microsoft, Redmond, Washington, United States) and JMP measurable programming (form 11.0.0, SAS, Cary, North Carolina, United States). Standard elucidating measurements are accounted for, including frequencies and rates of the factors of intrigue. Relationships between's careful methodology and parameters of intrigued were determined with both chi-square tests and Fisher precise tests to guarantee exactness with little example sizes. Kaplan–Meier bends were made portraying by and large endurance, and noteworthiness was tried utilizing log-rank test.

Results

Sixty-seven instances of precisely resected front skull base danger were incorporated over the 6-year time frame from 2007 through 2014. Ten of these cases were solely endoscopic (EEA), and 12 cases were cranioendoscopic (CEA); in both of these gatherings, most of cases were acted in the second 50% of the investigation time frame. Forty-five cases were performed with a customary craniofacial approach.

Segment measurements and tumor attributes are recorded by bunch in Table 1. The normal age in our partner was 58.2 years (run: 6–88), and most of patients were male (48 men, 19 ladies). The most well-known pathologies in our companion were esthesioneuroblastoma (25.4%), sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma (19.4%), squamous cell carcinoma (19.4%), and melanoma (10.4%). Of the 67 patients, 15 (22.4%) had experienced earlier skull base medical procedure (barring endoscopic biopsy) before introducing to our cranial base community for additional treatment; 7 (10.4%) had experienced past endoscopic resection, and 8 (11.9%) had experienced past open resection. An aggregate of 13.4% had experienced earlier nonsurgical treatment with radiation as well as chemotherapy. In all cases, past chemotherapy and additionally radiation done at outside foundations were performed for fix, as opposed to as neoadjuvant treatment. Tumor stage was fundamentally moved toward higher stage ailment: 70.1% had T3/T4 infection and 13.4% gave T1/T2. Certain pathologies (sarcoma, glomangiopericytoma, and adnexal carcinoma) and repetitive tumors with obscure arranging at time of beginning introduction organizing were not organized. Patients experiencing EEA were essentially more averse to have T3/T4 ailment, comparative with those patients requiring a craniotomy (p = 0.0077). Orbital intrusion (through periorbita into orbital fat) and intradural association, as dictated by imaging and intraoperative discoveries, were not altogether unique between gatherings (p = 0.17 and 0.052, individually). Adjuvant radiation treatment or potentially chemotherapy were utilized in 82.1 and 61.2% of cases, individually, without measurably huge contrasts between gatherings (p = 0.20 and 0.11, separately).

Author(s): Muhammad Alvi

Abstract | PDF

Share This Article