Large skull base defects can be challenging to repair. This study uses a controlled ex vivo model to examine the failure pressures of various dural repairs of large skull base defects using mucosa with fibrin glue under 3 conditions: No Additional Support of the repair, support with a Foley catheter (Direct Support), and with Foley catheter contact over a rigid acrylic plate (Diffuse Support).
Methods
Failure pressures of dural repairs with and without support were determined in a porcine model using an ex vivo closed testing apparatus. In addition, 20 mm × 15 mm dural defects were created. Skull base repairs were performed using porcine dura as an underlay graft followed by a septal mucosa overlay. Saline was infused at 30 mL/h, applying even force to the underside of the graft until repair failure occurred for each condition (none, direct, and diffuse support). Five trials were performed per repair type for a total of 15 repairs.
Results
The mean failure pressures were as follows: No Additional Support, 6.494 ± 2.553 mm Hg; Direct Support, 5.103 ± 3.913 mm Hg; and Diffuse Support, 15.649 ± 2.638 mm Hg. A post hoc Bonferroni-Holm test demonstrated significant difference between No Additional Support and Diffuse Support (P = .001), as well as Direct Support and Diffuse Support (P = .002).
Conclusion
Support of dural repairs in this model withstood higher pressures when the Foley catheter’s support is distributed evenly using a flat acrylic plate. Use of this plate is the only repair tested in this model that tolerated normal adult supine intracranial pressures.
LinslerSOertelJ.Endoscopic endonasal transclival resection of a brainstem cavernoma: a detailed account of our technique and comparison with the literature.World Neurosurg. 2015;
84(6):2064–2071.
2.
GioffrèGBoaroABilleciD, et al.
Banked fascia lata in sellar dura reconstruction after endoscopic transsphenoidal skull base surgery.J Neurol Surg Part B Skull Base. 2015;
76(4):303–309.
3.
KrischekBCarvalhoFGodoyBKiehlRZadehGGentiliF.From craniofacial resection to endonasal endoscopic removal of malignant tumors of the anterior skull base.J Neurol Surg Part B Skull Base. 2014;
82(6 Suppl):S59–S65.
4.
SoleroCDiMecoFSampathP, et al.
Combined anterior craniofacial resection for tumors involving the cribriform plate: early postoperative complications and technical considerations.Neurosurgery. 2000;
47(6):1296–1305.
5.
JeswaniSNuñoMWuA, et al.
Comparative analysis of outcomes following craniotomy and expanded endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal resection of craniopharyngioma and related tumors: a single-institution study.J Neurosurg. 2016;
124(3):627–638.
6.
GardnerPKassamASnydermanCCarrauRMintzA.Outcomes following purely endoscopic, expanded endonasal resection of suprasellar craniopharyngiomas.Skull Base. 2007;
16(S1):A069.
7.
EloyJViveroRHoangK, et al.
Comparison of transnasal endoscopic and open craniofacial resection for malignant tumors of the anterior skull base.Laryngoscope. 2009;
119(5):834–840.
8.
JaneJKiehnaEPayneSEarlySLawsE.Early outcomes of endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery for adult craniopharyngiomas.Neurosurg Focus. 2010;
28(4):E9.
9.
LengLBrownSAnandVSchwartzT.“Gasket-seal” watertight closure in minimal-access endoscopic cranial base surgery.Operat Neurosurg. 2008;
62:ONSE342–ONSE343.
10.
LengLGreenfieldJSouweidaneMAnandVSchwartzT.Endoscopic, endonasal resection of craniopharyngiomas.Neurosurgery. 2012;
70(1):110–124.
11.
YamadaSFukuharaNOyamaK, et al.
Surgical outcome in 90 patients with craniopharyngioma: an evaluation of transsphenoidal surgery.World Neurosurg. 2010;
74(2–3):320–330.
12.
Pinheiro-NetoCPrevedelloDCarrauR, et al.
Improving the design of the pedicled nasoseptal flap for skull base reconstruction: a radioanatomic study.Laryngoscope. 2007;
117(9):1560–1569.
13.
KassamACarrauRSnydermanC, et al.
Endoscopic reconstruction of the cranial base using a pedicled nasoseptal flap.Operat Neurosurg. 2008;
63:ONS44–ONS53.
14.
HadadGBassagasteguyLCarrauR, et al.
A novel reconstructive technique after endoscopic expanded endonasal approaches: vascular pedicle nasoseptal flap.Laryngoscope. 2006;
116(10):1882–1886.
15.
de AlmeidaJGhotmeKLeongIDrakeJJamesAWitterickI.A new porcine skull base model: fibrin glue improves strength of cerebrospinal fluid leak repairs.Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2009;
141(2):184–189.
16.
ThorpBSreenathSEbertCZanationA.Endoscopic skull base reconstruction: a review and clinical case series of 152 vascularized flaps used for surgical skull base defects in the setting of intraoperative cerebrospinal fluid leak.Neurosurg Focus. 2014;
37(4):E4.
17.
HarveyRParmarPSacksRZanationA.Endoscopic skull base reconstruction of large dural defects: a systematic review of published evidence.Laryngoscope. 2012;
122(2):452–459.
18.
LinRWeitzelEChenPMcMainsKMajorsJBuneginL.Failure pressures of three rhinologic dural repairs in a porcine ex vivo model.Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2015;
5(7):633–636.
19.
LinRWeitzelEChenP, et al.
Failure pressures after repairs of 2-cm × 2.5-cm rhinologic dural defects in a porcine ex vivo model.Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2016;
6(10):1034–1039.
20.
SteinerLAndrewsP.Monitoring the injured brain: ICP and CBF.Br J Anaesth. 2006;
97(1):26–38.
21.
WormaldPMcDonoghM.‘Bath-plug’ technique for the endoscopic management of cerebrospinal fluid leaks.J Laryngol Otol. 1997;
111(11):1042–1046.
HachemRElkhatibABeer-FurlanAPrevedelloDCarrauR.Reconstructive techniques in skull base surgery after resection of malignant lesions.Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016;
24(2):91–97.
24.
EloyJMarchianoEVázquezA, et al.
Management of skull base defects after surgical resection of sinonasal and ventral skull base malignancies.Otolaryngol Clin N Am. 2017;
50(2):397–417.
25.
FathallaHDi IevaALeeJ, et al.
Cerebrospinal fluid leaks in extended endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery: covering all the angles.Neurosurg Rev. 2016;
40(2):309–318.
26.
KassamAGardnerPSnydermanCCarrauRMintzAPrevedelloD.Expanded endonasal approach, a fully endoscopic transnasal approach for the resection of midline suprasellar craniopharyngiomas: a new classification based on the infundibulum.J Neurosurg. 2008;
108(4):715–728.
27.
HoriguchiKMuraiHHasegawaYHanazawaTYamakamiISaekiN.Endoscopic endonasal skull base reconstruction using a nasal septal flap: surgical results and comparison with previous reconstructions.Neurosurg Rev. 2010;
33(2):235–241.
28.
YanoSHideTShinojimaNHasegawaYKawanoTKuratsuJ.Endoscopic endonasal skull base approach for parasellar lesions: Initial experiences, results, efficacy, and complications.Surg Neurol Int. 2014;
5(1):51.
29.
El-SayedIRoedigerFGoldbergAParsaAMcDermottM.Endoscopic reconstruction of skull base defects with the nasal septal flap.Skull Base. 2008;
18(6):385–394.
30.
NarotamPJoséSNathooNTaylonCVoraY.Collagen matrix (DuraGen) in dural repair: analysis of a new modified technique.Spine. 2004;
29(24):2861–2867.
31.
De PaulisDDi VitantonioHDel MaestroM, et al.
Dural repair using autologous fat: our experience and review of the literature.Surg Neurol Int. 2016;
7(Suppl 16):S463–S468.
32.
BlackP.Cerebrospinal fluid leaks following spinal surgery: use of fat grafts for prevention and repair.J Neurosurg Spine. 2002;
96(2 Suppl):250–252.
33.
EloyJKuperanAFriedelM, et al.
Endoscopic nasoseptal flap repair of skull base defects: is addition of a dural sealant necessary?J Neurol Surg Part B Skull Base. 2012;
73(S 01):A021.
34.
Al-AsousiFOkpalekeCDadgostarAJaverA.The use of polydioxanone plates for endoscopic skull base repair.Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2017;
31(2):122–126.
