CSF Rhinorrhea After Endonasal Intervention to the Skull Base (CRANIAL) — Part 2:Impact of COVID-19

Background During the pandemic, there has been a concern about the increased risk of perioperative mortality for patients with COVID-19, and the transmission risk to healthcare workers, particularly during endonasal neurosurgical operations. The Pituitary Society produced recommendations to guide management during this era. We sought to assess contemporary neurosurgical practice and the impact of COVID-19. Methods A multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study was conducted at twelve tertiary neurosurgical units (UK and Ireland). Data were collected from March 23rd-July 31st, 2020 inclusive. Data points collected were patient demographics, pre-operative COVID-19 testing, intra-operative operative modifications, and 30-day COVID infection rates. Results 124 patients were included. 116 patients (n=116/124, 94%) underwent COVID-19 testing pre-operatively (TSA: 97/105, 92%; EEA: 19/19, 100%). One patient (n=1/115, 1%) tested positively for COVID-19 pre-operatively, requiring a delay of operation until the infection was confirmed as resolved. Asides from transient diabetes insipidus; no other complications were reported for this case. All theatre staff wore at least level 2 PPE. Adaptations to surgical techniques included minimising drilling, draping modifications, and using nasal iodine wash. At 30 days postoperatively, there was no evidence of COVID infection (symptoms or on formal testing) in our cohort, and no mortality. Conclusions Preoperative screening protocols and operative modifications have facilitated endonasal neurosurgery during the COVID-19 pandemic, with Pituitary Society guidelines followed for the majority of these operations. There was no evidence of COVID infection in our cohort, and no mortality, supporting the use of risk mitigation strategies to continue endonasal neurosurgery in subsequent pandemic waves

CSF Rhinorrhoea After Endonasal Intervention to the Skull Base (CRANIAL) - Part 1: Multicenter Pilot Study

Background: CRANIAL (CSF Rhinorrhoea After Endonasal Intervention to the Skull Base) is a prospective, multicentre observational study seeking to determine: (1) the scope of skull base repair methods used; and (2) corresponding rates of postoperative CSF rhinorrhoea in endonasal transsphenoidal (TSA) expanded endonasal approaches (EEA) for skull base tumours. We sought to pilot the project - assessing the feasibility and acceptability by gathering preliminary data. / Methods: A prospective, observational cohort pilot study was carried out at twelve tertiary UK neurosurgical units. Feedback regarding project positives and challenges were qualitatively analysed. / Results: 187 cases were included, 159 TSA (85%) and 28 EEA (15%). The most common pathologies included: pituitary adenomas (n=141/187), craniopharyngiomas (n=13/187) and skull-base meningiomas (n=4/187). The most common skull base repair techniques used were tissue glues (n=132/187, most commonly Tisseel®), grafts (n=94/187, most commonly fat autograft or Spongostan™) and vascularised flaps (n=51/187, most commonly nasoseptal). These repairs were most frequently supported by nasal packs (n=125/187) and lumbar drains (n=22/187). Biochemically-confirmed CSF rhinorrhoea occurred in 6/159 (3.8%) TSA and 2/28 (7.1%) EEA. Four TSA (3%) and two EEA (7%) cases required operative management for CSF rhinorrhoea (CSF diversion or direct repair). Qualitative feedback was largely positive (themes included: user-friendly and efficient data collection, strong support from senior team members) demonstrating acceptability. / Conclusions: Our pilot experience highlights the acceptability and feasibility of CRANIAL. There is a precedent for multicentre dissemination of this project, in order to establish a benchmark of contemporary skull base neurosurgery practice, particularly with respect to EEA cases

CSF Rhinorrhoea After Endonasal Intervention to the Skull Base (CRANIAL) - Part 1:Multicenter Pilot Study

Background CRANIAL (CSF Rhinorrhoea After Endonasal Intervention to the Skull Base) is a prospective, multicentre observational study seeking to determine: (1) the scope of skull base repair methods used; and (2) corresponding rates of postoperative CSF rhinorrhoea in endonasal transsphenoidal (TSA) expanded endonasal approaches (EEA) for skull base tumours. We sought to pilot the project - assessing the feasibility and acceptability by gathering preliminary data. Methods A prospective, observational cohort pilot study was carried out at twelve tertiary UK neurosurgical units. Feedback regarding project positives and challenges were qualitatively analysed. Results 187 cases were included, 159 TSA (85%) and 28 EEA (15%). The most common pathologies included: pituitary adenomas (n=141/187), craniopharyngiomas (n=13/187) and skull-base meningiomas (n=4/187). The most common skull base repair techniques used were tissue glues (n=132/187, most commonly Tisseel®), grafts (n=94/187, most commonly fat autograft or Spongostan™) and vascularised flaps (n=51/187, most commonly nasoseptal). These repairs were most frequently supported by nasal packs (n=125/187) and lumbar drains (n=22/187). Biochemically-confirmed CSF rhinorrhoea occurred in 6/159 (3.8%) TSA and 2/28 (7.1%) EEA. Four TSA (3%) and two EEA (7%) cases required operative management for CSF rhinorrhoea (CSF diversion or direct repair). Qualitative feedback was largely positive (themes included: user-friendly and efficient data collection, strong support from senior team members) demonstrating acceptability. Conclusions Our pilot experience highlights the acceptability and feasibility of CRANIAL. There is a precedent for multicentre dissemination of this project, in order to establish a benchmark of contemporary skull base neurosurgery practice, particularly with respect to EEA cases. Keywords Cerebrospinal fluid rhinorrhoeaCSFCerebrospinal fluid leakskull base surgeryendoscopic endonasalEE

Global variation in anastomosis and end colostomy formation following left-sided colorectal resection

Background End colostomy rates following colorectal resection vary across institutions in high-income settings, being influenced by patient, disease, surgeon and system factors. This study aimed to assess global variation in end colostomy rates after left-sided colorectal resection. Methods This study comprised an analysis of GlobalSurg-1 and -2 international, prospective, observational cohort studies (2014, 2016), including consecutive adult patients undergoing elective or emergency left-sided colorectal resection within discrete 2-week windows. Countries were grouped into high-, middle- and low-income tertiles according to the United Nations Human Development Index (HDI). Factors associated with colostomy formation versus primary anastomosis were explored using a multilevel, multivariable logistic regression model. Results In total, 1635 patients from 242 hospitals in 57 countries undergoing left-sided colorectal resection were included: 113 (6·9 per cent) from low-HDI, 254 (15·5 per cent) from middle-HDI and 1268 (77·6 per cent) from high-HDI countries. There was a higher proportion of patients with perforated disease (57·5, 40·9 and 35·4 per cent; P < 0·001) and subsequent use of end colostomy (52·2, 24·8 and 18·9 per cent; P < 0·001) in low- compared with middle- and high-HDI settings. The association with colostomy use in low-HDI settings persisted (odds ratio (OR) 3·20, 95 per cent c.i. 1·35 to 7·57; P = 0·008) after risk adjustment for malignant disease (OR 2·34, 1·65 to 3·32; P < 0·001), emergency surgery (OR 4·08, 2·73 to 6·10; P < 0·001), time to operation at least 48 h (OR 1·99, 1·28 to 3·09; P = 0·002) and disease perforation (OR 4·00, 2·81 to 5·69; P < 0·001). Conclusion Global differences existed in the proportion of patients receiving end stomas after left-sided colorectal resection based on income, which went beyond case mix alone