По всем вопросам звоните:

+7 495 274-22-22

УДК: 616.8-007 DOI:10.33920/med-01-2103-02

Differentiated approach in frontal sinus csf fistula plasty based on computed tomogram analysis

Elizaveta Vladimirovna Shelesko Federal State Autonomous Institution «N. N. Burdenko National Scientific and Practical Center for Neurosurgery» of the Ministry of Healthcare of the Russian Federation, 4-Tverskaya-Yamskaya, Str. 16, Moscow, Russia, 125047, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8249-9153
Nadezhda Alekseevna Chernikova Federal State Autonomous Institution «N. N. Burdenko National Scientific and Practical Center for Neurosurgery» of the Ministry of Healthcare of the Russian Federation, 4-Tverskaya-Yamskaya, Str. 16, Moscow, Russia, 125047, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4895-233X
Y. V. Strunina Federal State Autonomous Institution «N. N. Burdenko National Scientific and Practical Center for Neurosurgery» of the Ministry of Healthcare of the Russian Federation, 4-Tverskaya-Yamskaya Str. 16, Moscow, Russia, 125047
S. D. Nikonova Federal State Autonomous Institution «N. N. Burdenko National Scientific and Practical Center for Neurosurgery» of the Ministry of Healthcare of the Russian Federation, 4-Tverskaya-Yamskaya, Str. 16, Moscow, Russia, 125047, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4244-9669
Arslan Khanbagamaevich Abdulgamidov Federal State Autonomous Institution «N. N. Burdenko National Scientific and Practical Center for Neurosurgery» of the Ministry of Healthcare of the Russian Federation, 4-Tverskaya-Yamskaya, Str. 16, Moscow, Russia, 125047
Aleksandr Dmitrievich Kravchuk Federal State Autonomous Institution «N. N. Burdenko National Scientific and Practical Center for Neurosurgery» of the Ministry of Healthcare of the Russian Federation, 4-Tverskaya-Yamskaya, Str. 16, Moscow, Russia, 125047, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5711-3629
Denis Nikolaevich Zinkevich Federal State Autonomous Institution «N. N. Burdenko National Scientific and Practical Center for Neurosurgery» of the Ministry of Healthcare of the Russian Federation, 4-Tverskaya-Yamskaya, Str. 16, Moscow, Russia, 125047, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1295-0612

The choice of the method of CSF fistula plasty in the frontal sinus area is an important issue in neurosurgery since there are a large number of anatomical variations in the structure of the nasofrontal duct and the sinus itself. Endoscopic, combined, and transcranial approaches have been described in the literature. However, there is no clear algorithm for selecting surgical access for liquorrhea nasalis based on anatomicalfeatures. The purpose ofthis article is to study different anatomical variants ofthe frontal sinus and nasofrontal pocket structure in relation to defects of the skull base of this localization and, based on the findings, establish patterns of influence of certain indicators on surgical tactics and quality of plasty to complete the proposed classification.We retrospectively analyzed case histories and CT scans of 38 patients who underwent surgical treatment for skull base defects in the frontal sinus from 2010 to 2020. Patients were divided into three groups depending on the access used, peculiarities of intraoperative visualization of the defect, and relapses. In a series of 38 cases, endoscopic accesswas used in 26 (68.4 %) cases, combined access in 12 (31.6 %) cases. The defectwas completely visualized using angular optics during surgery in 32 (84.2 %) cases; in 6 (15.8 %) cases, the defect was not visualized or visualized partially (up to 50 %) using angular optics.Relapseswere observed in 6 (15.8 %) cases. The basic craniometric parameters influencing the choice of surgical tactics and the quality of plasty are the distance from the centre of the defect to the nasal floor, the value of the angle between the nasal floor and the line drawn through the edges of the defect, and the size of the defect. The incidence of relapses is directly related to the visualization of the defect during surgery. The distance from the defect to the nasal floor can serve as an objective indicator for the choice of access to intermediate defects of the frontal sinus: at a distance of more than 0.95 cm, it is reasonable to perform combined access; at a distance less than 0.95 cm, it is possible to achieve full visualization of the defect and perform quality plastic surgery with endoscopic access.

Литература:

1. Draf W, Weber R, Keerl R, Constantinidis J. Current aspects of frontal sinus surgery. I: Endonasal frontal sinus drainage in inflammatory diseases of the paranasal sinuses. Hno 1995; 43: 352–357.

2. Gross CW, Schlosser RJ. The modified Lothrop procedure: lessons learned. Laryngoscope 2001; 111: 1302–1305 https://doi.org/10.1097/00005537-200107000-00030

3. Tosun F, Gonul E, Yetiser S, Gerek M. Analysis of different surgical approaches for the treatment of cerebrospinal fluid rhinorrhea. Minim Invasive Neurosurg. 2005; 48 (6): 355–360. https://doi. org/10.1055/s-2005–915636

4. Gassner HG, Ponikau JU, Sherris DA, Kern EB. CSF rhinorrhea: 95 consecutive surgical cases with long term follow-up at the Mayo Clinic. Am J Rhinol. 1999; 13: 439–447. https://doi.org/10.2500/105065899781329610

5. Virginia Jones, Frank Virgin, Kristen Riley, Bradford A. Woodworth Changing paradigms in frontal sinus cerebrospinal fluid leak repair International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology. 2012; 2 (3): 227–232. https://doi. org/10.1002/alr.21019

6. Qintai Yang, Peng Li, Jiancong Huang, Weihao Wang, Shanyan Bian, Xuekun Huang, Xian Liu, Gehua Zhang Transnasal endoscopic and combined intra-extranasal approach for the surgical treatment of frontal sinus cerebrospinal fluid rhinorrhea. Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management. 2017; 13: 709–715. https:// doi.org/10.2147/tcrm.s134537

7. Kuhn FA, Javer AR. Primary endoscopic management of the frontal sinus. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2001; 34: 59–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0030–6665 (05) 70295–4

8. Wormald PJ. Three-dimensional building block approach to understanding the anatomy of the frontal recess and frontal sinus. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2006; 17: 2–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otot.2005.11.001

9. Adam J. Folbe, Peter F. Svider, Jean Anderson Eloy Anatomic Considerations in Frontal Sinus Surgery Otolaryngologic Clinics of North America 2016; 49: 4: 935–943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otc.2016.03.017

10. Chaaban MR, Conger B, Riley KO, Woodworth BA. Transnasal endoscopic repair of posterior table fractures. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2012; 147 (6): 1142–1147. https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599812462547

11. Shi JB, Chen FH, Fu QL, et al. Frontal sinus cerebrospinal fluid leaks: repair in 15 patients using an endoscopic surgical approach. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec. 2010; 72 (1): 56–62. https://doi. org/10.1159/000275675

12. Shelesko E.V., Kapitanov D. N., Kravchuk A. D., Chernikova N. A., Okhlopkov V. A., Zinkevich D. N. Modern aspects of surgical treatment of nasal liquorrhea with localization of defect in frontal sinus 2019; 83 (5): 21–30. https://doi.org/10.17116/neiro20198305121 (in Russ.)

13. Ankit M. Patel, Winston C. Vaughan «Above and Below» FESS: Simple Trephine with Endoscopic Sinus Surgery The Frontal Sinus 2016 on pages 325 to 335. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-48523-1_24

14. Ponde´ JM, Metzger P, Amaral G, Machado M, Prandini M. Anatomic variations of the frontal sinus. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 2003. 46: 29–32. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2003–37956

15. Fatu C., Puisoru M., Rotaru M., Truta A. M. Morphometric evaluation of the frontal sinus in relation to age. Annals of Anatomy 5 Anatomischer Anzeiger: Official Organ of the Anatomische Gesellschaft, 2006; 188 (3): 275–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aanat.2005.11.012

16. Duque CS, Casiano RR. Surgical anatomy and embryology of the frontal sinus. The Frontal Sinus. 2005: 21–31 https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-27607-6_3

17. Babiyak V. I., Govorun M. I., Nakatis Ya. A. Otorhinolaryngology. Volume 1 Publishing house «Peter» 2009 pp. 31–44 (in Russ.)

18. Elisa A. Illing, Bradford A. Woodworth Management of Frontal Sinus Cerebrospinal Fluid Leaks and Encephaloceles Otolaryngologic Clinics of North America. 2016; 49 (4): 1035–1050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. otc.2016.03.025

19. Becker SS, Bomeli SR, Gross CW, Han JK. Limits of endoscopic visualiza-tion and instrumentation in the frontal sinus. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2006; 135 (6): 917–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otohns.2005.05.445

20. Julie L. Zweig, Ricardo L. Carrau, Scott E. Celin, Barry M. Schaitkin, Phillip A. Pollice, Carl H. Snyderman, Amin Kassam, Hassan Hegazy Endoscopic Repair of Cerebrospinal Fluid Leaks to the Sinonasal Tract: Predictors of Success 2000 Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery volume 123 issue 3 on pages 195 to 201. https://doi. org/10.1067/mhn.2000.107452

21. Collin M. Burkart, Lee A. Zimmer Endoscopic Modified Lothrop Procedure: A Radiographic Anatomic Study Laryngoscope. 2011; 121: 2: 442–445. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.21168

22. Mukkamala, Stankiewicz, Srinivas Mukkamala. CSF Rhinorrhea. EMedicine. Neurology. 2002; 58 (5): 814–816.

23. Nesibe Gu Yuksel Aslier, Nuri Karabay, Guls¸ Zeybek, Pembe Keskinog, Amac¸ Kiray, Semih Sutay, Mustafa Cenk Ecevit Computed Tomographic Analysis: The Effects of Frontal Recess Morphology and the Presence of Anatomical Variations on Frontal Sinus Pneumatization. J Craniofac Surg 2017; 28: 256–261 https:// doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000003222

24. Becker SS, Duncavage JA, Russell PT. Endoscopic endonasal repair of difficult-to-access cerebrospinal fluid leaks of the frontal sinus. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2009; 23 (2): 181–4. https://doi.org/10.2500/ ajra.2009.23.3291

25. Buller J, Maus V, Grandoch A, Kreppel M, Zirk M, Zöller JE, Frontal Sinus Morphology: A Reliable Factor for Classification of Frontal Bone Fractures? Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 2018; 76: 10: 2168. e1–2168.e7, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2018.06.020

List of abbreviations

CT — computerized tomography

CTC — computerized tomographic cisternography

Currently, endoscopic endonasal accesses according to Draf and its modification according to Lothrop are widely used for the treatment of various frontal sinus pathologies. These accesses are minimally traumatic, allow performing the operation effectively under visual control and provide full drainage of the sinus in the postoperative period [1, 2]. Despite good results and safety, in some cases, the use of these accesses has limitations and therefore combined and extranasal accesses to the frontal sinus are used [3].

Closure of a CSF fistula in the frontal sinus has historically been performed using transcranial access through a bicoronal incision with dissection of an aponeurotic flap [4]. The development of modern equipment and improvement of surgical techniques led to the wide application of the endoscopic method for the treatment of defects in the frontal sinus area. For example, Virginia Jones et al. reported in their study that the effectiveness of frontal sinus defect plasty using endoscopic access was 91.9 % [5]. Combined intra-extranasal access, which combines the advantages of both endoscopic and transcranial approaches, is also widespread. Qintai et al. recommend performing it for lateral defects because this approach is minimally traumatic, allows working under conditions of a good visualization and in the line-of-sight area, which cannot be achieved by endoscopic access for this localization [6].

According to a number of authors, the anatomy of the cells of the labyrinth, nasofrontal pocket, and frontal sinus is of paramount importance to decide whether it is possible to perform endoscopic plasty of the defect of this area [7–9]. However, there is no clear algorithm in the literature for selecting surgical access for liquorrhea nasalis based on anatomical features.

Chaaban MR et al. [10] report that endoscopic access for frontal sinus defects has several limitations: lateral location of the fistula, large defect size, convex posterior sinus wall, which may limit the passage and manoeuvring of instruments, narrow sinus (with anteroposterior distance less than 1 cm). According to their study, once a Draf III sinusotomy is performed, the defects in the frontal sinus laterally can be visualized, but endoscopic instruments can reach them only 64 % of the time. Shi et al. [11] do not recommend endoscopic access if the anteroposterior size of the sinus entrance is less than 6 mm (i.e., narrow junction), presence of poorly pneumatized Agger nasi cells. The authors suggest a combined approach (endoscopic and external access) for such anatomy.

Для Цитирования:
Elizaveta Vladimirovna Shelesko, Nadezhda Alekseevna Chernikova, Y. V. Strunina, S. D. Nikonova, Arslan Khanbagamaevich Abdulgamidov, Aleksandr Dmitrievich Kravchuk, Denis Nikolaevich Zinkevich, Differentiated approach in frontal sinus csf fistula plasty based on computed tomogram analysis. Вестник неврологии, психиатрии и нейрохирургии. 2021;3.
Полная версия статьи доступна подписчикам журнала
Язык статьи:
Действия с выбранными: