Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:

Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_4446_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана

.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
30.08.2026
Размер:
49 Мб
Скачать
324
(a) Optic nerve compression, retrobulbar
hematoma, blindness, diplopia, epiphora
6. Intracranial infections (a) Meningitis, cerebritis
• Most signicant complication
• Life-threatening
7. Cerebrospinal uid leak (a) Prevented by achieving watertight
closure
(b) Vascularized intranasal or locoregional
ap
(c) Use of lumbar drain dependent on sur-
geon- and institution-specic variables
8. Intracranial complications (a) Stroke (b) Pneumocephalus
• Occurs from trapped air that enters into nasal cavity from sinonasal tract
• High risk of brain herniation
• Treat with emergent aspiration, re­exploration to identify and repair com­munication between sinonasal cavity and brain
9. Neurologic complications (a) Hypesthesia, paresthesia, seizure,
anosmia
Take Home Messages
• Malignant tumors of the sinonasal cav-
ity represent less than 1% of all cancers, and about 3% of cancers of the upper aerodigestive tract.
• Sinonasal tumors can be a diagnostic
challenge because they present with symptoms that mimic common inam­matory sinonasal disease.
• CT and MRI can complement each
other in determining vascular anatomy, bony erosion into the orbit or skull base, as well as meningeal involvement and perineural spread of tumor.
• Surgical resection of sinonasal masses
can involve an interdisciplinary team with multiple endoscopic and open approaches available.
A. Tassler et al.
• Sinonasal malignancies generally require multimodality therapy for ade­quate treatment.
• Complications from sinonasal tumor treatment can include epistaxis, optic nerve compression, cerebrospinal uid leak, stroke, pneumocephalus, hypoes­thesia/paresthesias, or tumor recurrence.
Recommended Readings
1. Weymuller EA, Davis GE.Malignancies of the para­nasal sinus. In: Flint PW, Haughey BH, Lund V, Niparko JK, Robbins KT, Thomas JR, Lesperance MM, editors. Cummings otolaryngology head and neck surgery. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Saunders;
2010. p.1121–32.
2. Nicolai P, Castelnuovo P. Benign tumors of the sinonasal tract. In: Flint PW, Haughey BH, Lund V, Niparko JK, Robbins KT, Thomas JR, Lesperance MM, editors. Cummings otolaryngology head and neck surgery. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Saunders;
2010. p.717–27.
3. Virk JS, Chan J, Dimitrov L, Williamson A, Sandison A, Weir J, Clarke P.Sinonasal cancer: an overview of the emerging subtypes. J Laryngol Otol. 2020;12:1–6.
4. López F, Lund VJ, Suárez C, Snyderman CH, Saba NF, Robbins KT, Vander Poorten V, Strojan P, Mendenhall WM, Rinaldo A, Ferlito A. The impact of histologic phenotype in the treatment of sinonasal cancer. Adv Ther. 2017;34(10):2181–98.
5. Llorente JL, López F, Suárez C, Hermsen MA. Sinonasal carcinoma: clinical, pathological, genetic and therapeutic advances. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2014;11(8):460–72.
6. Turner JH, Reh DD. Incidence and survival in patients with sinonasal cancer: a historical analysis of population- based data. Head Neck. 2012;34(6):877– 85, 877.
7. Sanghvi S, Khan MN, Patel NR, Yeldandi S, Baredes S, Eloy JA. Epidemiology of sinonasal squamous cell carcinoma: a comprehensive analysis of 4994 patients. Laryngoscope. 2014;124(1):76–83.
8. Choussy O, Ferron C, Védrine PO, Toussaint B, Liétin B, Marandas P, Babin E, De Raucourt D, Reyt E, Cosmidis A, Makeiff M. Adenocarcinoma of eth­moid: a GETTEC retrospective multicenter study of 418 cases. Laryngoscope. 2008;118(3):437–43.
9. Kang JH, Cho SH, Kim JP, Kang KM, Cho KS, Kim W, Seol YM, Lee S, Park HS, Hur WJ, Choi YJ.Treatment outcomes between concurrent chemo-
28 Neoplasms oftheSinonasal Cavity
Данная книга находится в списке для перевода на русский язык сайта https://meduniver.com/
325
radiotherapy and combination of surgery, radiother­apy, and/or chemotherapy in stage III and IV maxillary sinus cancer: multi-institutional retrospective analy­sis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;70(7):1717–23.
10. Robin TP, Jones BL, Gordon OM, Phan A, Abbott D, McDermott JD, Goddard JA, Raben D, Lanning RM, Karam SD. A comprehensive comparative analysis of treatment modalities for sinonasal malignancies. Cancer. 2017;123(16):3040–9.
11. Snyderman CH, Carrau RL, Kassam AB, Zanation A, Prevedello D, Gardner P, Mintz A.Endoscopic skull base surgery: principles of endonasal oncological sur­gery. J Surg Oncol. 2008;97(8):658–64.
12. Lund VJ, Howard D, Wei W, Spittle M.Olfactory neu­roblastoma: past, present, and future? Laryngoscope. 2003;113(3):502–7.
13. Lu VM, Ravindran K, Phan K, Van Gompel JJ, Smith TR, Donaldson AM, Quinones-Hinojosa A, Mekary
RA, Chaichana KL. Surgical outcomes of endo­scopic versus open resection for primary sinonasal malignancy: a meta-analysis. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2019;33(5):608–16.
14. Dong D, Wang Y, Li C, Zhang H, Zhao Y, Lai J. Fibro-osseous lesions of paranasal sinus and cra­niofacial region: a retrospective study of 282 cases. Laryngoscope. 2020;14
15. Lisan Q, Laccourreye O, Bonls P. Sinonasal inverted papilloma: From diagnosis to treat­ment. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis. 2016;133(5):337–41.
16. López F, Triantafyllou A, Snyderman CH, Hunt JL, Suárez C, Lund VJ, Strojan P, Saba NF, Nixon IJ, Devaney KO, Alobid I.Nasal juvenile angiobroma: current perspectives with emphasis on management. Head Neck. 2017;39(5):1033–45.
AL GRAWANY
Cerebrospinal Fluid Rhinorrhea
HamadAl Saey, AhmedShaikh, SaraAshkanani, MansourAl Sulaiti, EmadAl Duhirat, andShanmugamGanesan
29
29.1 Introduction
Cerebrospinal uid (CSF) rhinorrhea is result of abnormal communication between subarachnoid space and sinonasal cavities. It results from the breakdown of layers separating the nasal cavity from subarachnoid space. Rhinorrhea is a com­mon rhinology complaint and should be differen­tiated from CSF leak.
H. Al Saey (*) · A. Shaikh · S. Ashkanani M. Al Sulaiti · E. Al Duhirat · S. Ganesan Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Division, Department of Surgery, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar
Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Division, Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar, Doha, Qatar e-mail: Halsaey@hamad.qa;
sashkanani@hamad.qa; Malsulaiti1@hamad.qa; EAlDuhirat@hamad.qa; sganesan@hamad.qa
Anatomy: CSF is ultraltrate of plasma which contains electrolyte, glucose, and proteins. It is present in the subarachnoid space helps in main­taining the hemostasis of neural tissue and main­tains the chemical environment of brain. It is produced by choroid plexus; the further ow is as follows [1].
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 A. Al-Qahtani et al. (eds.), Textbook of Clinical Otolaryngology,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54088-3_29
327
328
Данная книга находится в списке для перевода на русский язык сайта https://meduniver.com/
H. Al Saey et al.
Choroid Plexus
Lateral Ventricles
Foramen of Monro
3rd Ventricles
Aqueduct of Sylvius
4th Ventricle
Foramen of Magendie and Luschka
Subarachnoid Space
Reabsorption through arachnoid Villi
Total Volume of CSF : 140 ml Production: 0.33ml/ minute Normal CSF pressure: 5 to 15 cm of H Neurological Symptoms occur when ICP (intracranial pressure) > 15 to 20 cm of H
29.2 Aetiology
CSF rhinorrhea has been classied according to the aetiology as follows [2]:
0
2
29.3 Diagnosis
Patients of CSF rhinorrhea present with unilat­eral watery discharge (90%) with salt or sweet taste in the throat. Rhinorrhea is positional with
1. Posttraumatic: 80% of CSF leaks are from nonsurgical head trauma, 2% of all head trauma, 30% of all basilar skull base fractures have CSF leak [3].
2. Iatrogenic: 16% of all leaks are from surgical trauma [5].
increase in leaning forward or standing position sometimes referred to as tea pot sign.
Other symptoms include headache, decrease
in vision, and sometimes dizziness and tinnitus.
Conrmation of CSF rhinorrhea can be done
by the following test.
3. Spontaneous: 14–46% of all cases of CSF rhi­norrhea [6, 7].
4. Idiopathic.
Ring sign: CSF combined with the blood leave a ring sign or a halo sign. The nasal secretions
0
2
AL GRAWANY
29 Cerebrospinal Fluid Rhinorrhea
329
mixed with blood when placed on lter paper or bed sheets leave a central clearance of CSF and peripheral blood termed as halo sign. This is immediate indicator of CSF and gives a clue, but reliability of this sign is poor [8].
Glucose testing: Testing clear rhinorrhea for glucose is a quick option for diagnosis; it was traditionally considered that the glucose in the nasal secretions is because of presence of CSF. Recent studies have indicated that glu­cose is also present in 50% cases of acute viral rhinitis, diabetes mellitus, and endotracheal secretions of ICU patients. It has 80% speci­city and low sensitivity [8].
Beta-2 transferrin: Beta-2 transferrin is a gly­coprotein that is present in CSF, but is not detected in nasal secretions or surrounding tis­sue. It is used as a marker for CSF rhinorrhea. It is detected by using immunoxation, sodium dodecyl sulfate polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis, and isoelectric phoresis. It has high sensitivity and high specicity. Beta-2 transferrin is also present in vitreous and perilymph [8, 9].
Beta trace proteins: Similar to beta-2 transfer- rin, beta trace protein is also present in high concentration in CSF; it is produced by lepto­meninges and choroid plexus. The reported sensitivity and specicity of the test is 100%. Bacterial meningitis and renal insufciency can affect the level of beta trace proteins in CSF.
Once CSF leak has been conrmed, localiza-
tion of the leak is essential for preoperative planning.
Radiological investigations are used for con-
rmation and localization of site of leak.
ing to determine which defect is denite source of CSF leak. If only one osseous defect is identi­ed and corresponds to clinical symptoms, then no additional further imaging is needed to pro­ceed surgery.
29.3.2 Computed Tomography Cisternography [10]
CTC is performed by instilling intrathecal non­ionic myelographic iodinated contrast (uores­cein). Sinuses are scanned both in prone and supine position. There is increase in >50 Hounseld units around the osseous defect in positive study around site of leak (Fig.29.1).
When introduced in 1977, CTC was consid­ered the study of choice to evaluate CSF stulae, but it is now selectively used as a problem- solving tool in specic scenarios, primarily in the setting of multiple osseous defects on CT, to determine the site of leak. CTC has a wide range of reported sensitivities of 33–100% and specicity of approximately 94% [10]. The main limitation of CTC is that patients have to be actively leaking, or able to elicit a leak, at the time of examination. Low rates of sensitivity are predominantly attrib­uted to imaging in the absence of an active leak, with other potential causes being obscuration of small leak in the setting of high-density contrast media adjacent to high- density bone and high viscosity of contrast media prohibiting leakage through a stulous tract. The disadvantages of CTC include high radiation dose related to mul­tiple scans, inherent risk of a lumbar puncture, and potential adverse outcome from iodinated contrast.
29.3.1 High-Resolution Computed Tomography (HRCT)
HRCT is rst choice for localization of site of leak. It is best modality to delineate the osseous anatomy for surgical planning. If patient has mul­tiple osseous defects, then it becomes challeng-
29.3.3 Magnetic Resonance Cisternogram
MRC is a common imaging modality used for CSF leak diagnosis. It is a noninvasive study capable of both leak conrmation and site local­ization by the inherent bright signal of CSF on
330
Данная книга находится в списке для перевода на русский язык сайта https://meduniver.com/
Fig. 29.1 CT cisternography demonstrating the leak from lateral sphenoid recess (Sternberg’s canal horizontal arrow)
and cribriform plate (vertical arrow)
H. Al Saey et al.
T2-weighted images passing from intracranial into paranasal sinuses, as well as by the identi­cation of herniated soft tissue in skull base defects [10].
Magnetic resonance (MR) cisternography (MRC) is performed by acquiring heavily T2-weighted (T2w) images to increase conspicu­ity of the contrast between CSF and the adjacent skull base. The spatial resolution of HRCT is far superior to that of MR imaging, but the advent of thin-slice images that can be reformatted into multiple planes signicantly improves MR imag­ing of the skull base. MRC should continue to be used in conjunction with HRCT because MR imaging cannot provide the exquisite osseous detail of CT [10].
29.3.4 Radionuclide Cisternography
RNC is a nuclear medicine study in which a radioisotope is injected intrathecally via lumbar puncture, and pledgets are placed in the nasal cavities for several hours at a time, then removed and measured for radioactive tracer. This study may be able to better detect a CSF leak that is too slow or intermittent to produce a sufcient sam­ple for beta-2 transferrin testing. It is an invasive study, however, and therefore carries the poten­tial risks inherent to any other lumbar puncture
with intrathecal injection. RNC is considered a diagnostic or conrmatory study rather than a localization study. The tracer may exit the skull base at the location of the stula but contact the pledget at a second separate site. In addition, it cannot guarantee that the CSF is from a rhino­logic leak and not an otologic leak that has trav­eled down the Eustachian tube into the nasopharynx.
The available data indicate that this is a more invasive, more expensive, and less accurate test than beta-2 transferrin or beta trace protein. Based on these facts, RNC should not be rou­tinely employed to conrm the presence of a CSF leak [10].
29.4 Spontaneous CSF Leaks
Spontaneous CSF leaks represent distinct group of pathologies, by denition spontaneous leak is dened as CSF rhinorrhea in absence of any pre­ceding event. Most of these patients show clinical signs and radiographic features of increased intracranial pressure. Accurately diagnosing patients with spontaneous CSF leaks is critical for the successful repair of these patients because multiple studies have identied increased ICP as a negative risk factor for successful repair [68,
11]. Although repair of nasal CSF leaks using
AL GRAWANY
29 Cerebrospinal Fluid Rhinorrhea
331
endoscopic techniques has high success rates, patients with spontaneous CSF leaks have his­torically had a signicantly lower success rate. There is strong correlation between the spontane­ous leak and benign intracranial hypertension.
Patients are generally obese middle-aged women who present with spontaneous clear rhi­norrhea. The diagnosis is conrmed by beta-2 transferrin.
After diagnosing CSF rhinorrhea by beta-2 transferrin, next is localization of the skull base defect and site of CSF stula. High-resolution computed tomography (CT) is the initial radio­graphic test of choice, allowing for evaluation of the bony integrity of the skull base and paranasal sinuses. Patients with spontaneous CSF leaks have characteristic CT ndings that support the diagnosis. The bone of the skull base is broadly attenuated and thin. Arachnoid pits secondary to the bony impressions from the arachnoid villi in the skull base are present in 63% of patients with spontaneous CSF leaks. The most common sites of skull base dehiscence are the lateral recess of the sphenoid and the ethmoid roof. Pneumatization of the lateral recess of the sphenoid is reported in 91% of patients with spontaneous CSF leaks, in comparison with 23–43% in normal patients [12]. Dehiscence of the ethmoid roof or cribri­form plate is seen in 14% of patients with sponta­neous CSF leaks [13]. The presence of multiple skull base defects is common and may be present in 31% of these patients.
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a use­ful adjunct in the evaluation of patients with CSF rhinorrhea. Patients with spontaneous CSF leaks have the highest rate of meningoencephalocele formation, ranging from 50 to 100% [1, 9]. MRI is effective in assessing the contents of meningo­encephalocele. Another benet of MRI in the evaluation of patients with spontaneous CSF leaks is the recognition of the empty sella. Empty sella syndrome is a common radiographic nding seen in both spontaneous CSF leaks and IIH [3,
4, 14]. Increased ICP are exerted on sites of
inherent structural weakness including the fascia of the sellar diaphragm. The resulting herniation of the meninges and CSF through the sellar dia­phragm produces the appearance of an empty
sella on MRI.The presence of empty sella syn­drome has been associated with both increased ICP and spontaneous CSF leaks [9, 15, 16].
29.5 Traumatic CSF Rhinorrhea
Approximately 80% of CSF leaks result from nonsurgical trauma, 16% from surgical proce­dures, and the remaining 4% are nontraumatic. Of the traumatic leaks, more than 50% are evi­dent within the rst 2days, 70% within the rst week, and almost all present within the rst 3months. Delayed presentation may result from wound contraction or scar formation, necrosis of bony edges or soft tissue, slow resolution of edema, devascularization of tissues, posttreat­ment tumor retraction, or progressive increases in intracranial pressure (secondary to brain edema or other process). As with most maxillofacial trauma, traumatic CSF leaks occur most com­monly in young males and complicate 2% of all head traumas, and 12–30% of all basilar skull fractures. Anterior skull base leaks are more common than middle or posterior leaks, due to the rm adherence of the dura to the anterior bas­ilar skull. The most common sites of CSF rhinor­rhea following accidental trauma are the sphenoid sinus (30%), frontal sinus (30%), and ethmoid/ cribriform (23%), When looking at surgical trauma, the most common sites of CSF leak fol­lowing FESS are ethmoid/cribriform (80%), fol­lowed the frontal sinus (8%) and sphenoid sinus (4%). After neurosurgical procedures, the most common site of CSF leak is the sphenoid sinus (67%) because of the high number of pituitary tumors that are addressed via transsphenoidal approach [1719].
29.6 Management ofCSF Leaks
29.6.1 Conservative Management
Conservative treatment consists of strict bed rest and elevation of the head at least 30°. In addition, patients should be advised to refrain from cough­ing, sneezing, nose blowing, and straining or
332
Данная книга находится в списке для перевода на русский язык сайта https://meduniver.com/
H. Al Saey et al.
Valsalva maneuvers. Stool softeners are recom­mended, as well as antiemetics to avoid emesis or retching, antitussives to avoid coughing, and strict blood pressure management. The goal of these measures is to reduce active ow through the leak, reduce CSF pressure, and allow healing of the defect to seal the leak, avoiding surgical intervention; the overall rate of cessation with conservative treatment was 39.5% when used for 3days. Resolution with conservative treatment of CSF stulas involving temporal bone origin was 60%, whereas anterior skull base defects resolved
26.4% of the time with conservative treatment. If conservative management is extended to 7days, resolution rates improve to 85%.
29.6.2 Prophylactic Antibiotics
Cochrane Database review was performed to address these deciencies. The analysis included 208 patients from four randomized controlled tri­als and an additional 2168 patients from 17 non­randomized controlled trials. The analysis concluded that the evidence does not support the use of prophylactic antibiotics to reduce the risk of meningitis in patients with basilar skull frac­tures or basilar skull fractures with active CSF leak. Analysis of both randomized and nonran­domized controlled trials failed to show a benet or adverse effects of prophylactic antibiotic use in patients with active CSF leak; therefore, the current available literature suggests that prophy­lactic antibiotics do not decrease the risk of men­ingitis. It should be stated that perioperative antibiotics are indicated for surgical repair of CSF leaks, and in certain circumstances (such as active bacterial rhinosinusitis or grossly contami­nated tract leading to the intracranial cavity) anti­biotic coverage is reasonable [4, 13, 20].
29.6.3 Cerebrospinal Fluid Diversion
If there is persistence of the leak with conserva­tive treatment, CSF diversion (most commonly with a lumber drain but occasionally serial lum­bar punctures) is pursued. Lumbar drains are pas-
sive devices yet they require active management. Average drainage rates are around 10 mL per hour. Optimal drainage lowers CSF pressure to decompress the leak; however, if drainage is too high, severe headaches and pneumocephalus may result from drawing of air through the skull base defect into the cranial vault. There is also the added risk of meningitis. The benets are that the addition of CSF diversion to conservative mea­sures raises success rates to 70–90% with the average duration of drainage being 6.5 days. Another benet of this treatment is that it can be performed at the bedside, even if patients are not stable enough to go to the operating room. Lumbar drains can also be used as an adjunctive treatment to increase the success rates following a variety of surgical repairs.
29.6.4 Surgical Management
Open intracranial approaches have historically been used for CSF leak repair, but in recent decades these have largely been replaced by endonasal endoscopic approaches, given their high success rate and lower morbidity prole. Commonly utilized endoscopic repair techniques for CSF leak are numerous, including free tissue grafts, vascularized aps, and tissue sealants, as well as various multilayer combinations of these methods. Studies have shown that vascularized aps are superior in the setting of large dural defects or high-ow CSF leaks [7, 8]; otherwise, implementation of a specic repair technique is directed more by surgeon preference than by evidence- based guidance.
29.6.5 Transcranial Approach
Although CSF rhinorrhea was initially described in the seventeenth century, it was not until 1926 that Dand [21] reported the rst successful repair by using a bifrontal craniotomy for access and a fascia lata graft for repair. After craniotomy the brain is retracted and the site of the defect is iden­tied. Multiple tissues can be used for repair including fascia lata grafts, muscle plugs, and
AL GRAWANY
29 Cerebrospinal Fluid Rhinorrhea
333
pedicled galeal or pericranial aps. Tissue seal­ants, such as brin glue, can be used to hold the graft in position; however, this will only last a few weeks, leading the authors to prefer suture closure to the dura distal to the defect, which more securely holds the graft in place. Reported success rates vary; however, recurrence rates as high as 27% have been reported. The clear advan­tage of this approach is that it provides direct access to the defect and allows for repair of mul­tiple sites; however, with high reported failure rates, the morbidity of a craniotomy, and brain retraction (including potential hematoma, sei­zures, and anosmia), extracranial techniques are now preferred in most circumstances. At present these techniques are mostly used in patients who require a craniotomy and exposure of the skull base to treat associated intracranial pathology.
29.6.6 Endoscopic Repair
There are a variety of different graft materials available for endoscopic repair of CSF leaks, including fat, bone, allografts, free mucosal grafts, and vascularized grafts, as well as glues or sealants to secure these materials in place. Following an extensive literature search on the topic of endoscopic repair for CSF rhinorrhea, the overall success rate ranges from 70 to 100% on rst attempt and 86 to 100% on second for all reported repair materials. Endoscopic techniques have emerged as the preferred approach to the repair of skull base defects since their initial description by Wigand in 1981. This initial report described repair of a defect encountered during sinus surgery. In 1989, the rst report of the use of rigid transnasal endoscopy for the endonasal repair of CSF rhinorrhea was described. Following identication and localization of the skull base defect, standard endoscopic techniques are used to expose the defect site. This approach provides excellent exposure of the ethmoid roof, cribriform plate, and the sphenoid sinus. The choice of graft material has been a source of debate for some time; however, based on a recent meta-analysis, it appears that graft material does
not affect success rate as long as sound surgical technique is used. Graft choices include tempora­lis fascia, fascia lata, muscle plugs, mucosal grafts (with or without bone), autogenous fat, free cartilage grafts (from the nasal septum or auricle), and free bone grafts (from the nasal sep­tum, calvarium, or iliac crest). For small defects, free mucosal or free fascial grafts can be placed in an overlay fashion.
Overlay, underlay, combined, and the oblitera­tion techniques can be used for CSF closure. Overlay grafts are placed over the defect and these are outside the bony cranial cavity. The underlay grafts could be of two types (these are inside the bony cranial cavity). The epidural underlay graft is between the bone and the dura matter. The intradural underlay graft is placed in the subdural space. The combined techniques can be used. In a meta-analysis of the literature, both techniques yielded similar results. In the epidural underlay technique, the intact dura is separated from the edge of the skull base defect to expose an adequate buttress for the stabilization of the graft. The free graft should be designed in such a way that it can be pushed few millimeters between the bone and the dura on all the sides of the defect. Bone or cartilage underlay grafts are advocated for large bony defects associated with herniating brain or meninges. The inlay tech­nique is technically more demanding than the overlay technique. Inlay grafting is also suited to repair defects of the posterior wall of the frontal sinus, the cribriform plate, the ethmoid roof, and the sphenoid sinus in some cases. The onlay (overlay) technique is recommended if there is a risk of nerves or vessels injury. It is also indicated when an inlay technique is not technically possi­ble. The graft is placed generally over the dural lesion and over the exposed bony margins, which have been denuded of the mucosa. The graft is supported in place with layers of Gel foam/Gel lm or Surgicel; followed by a packing, overlay grafts (79%) are more frequently used as com­pared to inlay grafts (12%). As an alternative, a vascularized haddad ap (nasoseptal ap) can be used designed over the nasal septal branch of sphenopalatine artery (Fig.29.2a–c).
334
H. Al Saey et al.
Данная книга находится в списке для перевода на русский язык сайта https://meduniver.com/
ab
c
Fig. 29.2 (a) Cribriform plate with exit of olfactory bers (yellow arrow), meningocele is seen at the level of fovea
ethmoidalis (Red arrow). (b) Fat plug inserted into the defect. (c) Fascia lata placed as overlay graft
3. Loew F, Pertuiset B, Chaumier EE, et al. Traumatic,
Take Home Messages
• Any unilateral nasal discharge should be investigated for CSF rhinorrhea.
• Beta-2 transferrin is the diagnostic lab test with high sensitivity and specicity.
• Endoscopic CSF rhinorrhea repair has high rate of success.
• Early diagnosis and localization of site of leak is key for successful management.
References
1. Han CY, Backous DD.Basic principles of cerebrospi­nal uid metabolism and intracranial pressure homeo­stasis. Otolaryngol Clin N Am. 2005;38:569–76.
2. Har-El G.What is “spontaneous” cerebrospinal uid rhinorrhea? Classication of cerebrospinal uid leaks. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1999;108:323–6.
spontaneous and postoperative CSF rhinorrhea. Adv Tech Stand Neurosurg. 1984;11:169–207.
4. Friedman JA, Ebersold MJ, Quast LM.Posttraumatic cerebrospinal uid leakage. World J Surg. 2001;25:1062–6.
5. Kerman M, Cirak B, Dagtekin A. Management of skull base fractures. Neurosurg Q. 2002;12:23–41.
6. Friedman JA, Ebersold MJ, Quast LM. Post­traumatic cerebrospinal uid leakage. World J Surg. 2001;25:1062–6.
7. Banks CA, Palmer JN, Chiu AG, et al. Endoscopic closure of CSF rhinorrhea: 193 cases over 21 years. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2009;140:826–33.
8. Kerr JT, Chu FW, Bayles SW. Cerebrospinal uid rhinorrhea: diagnosis and management. Otolaryngol Clin N Am. 2005;38:597–611.
9. Schlosser RJ, Bolger WE.Signicance of empty sella in cerebrospinal uid leaks. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2003;128:32–8.
10. Reddy M, Baugnon K. Imaging of cerebrospi­nal uid rhinorrhea and otorrhea. Radiol Clin N Am. 2017;55(1):167–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rcl.2016.08.005. Review. PubMed PMID: 27890184.
11. Schlosser RJ, Wilensky EM, Grady MS, etal. Elevated intracranial pressures in spontaneous cerebrospinal uid leaks. Am J Rhinol. 2003;17:191–5.
AL GRAWANY