Literature DB >> 24457820

MR imaging evolution of endoscopic cranial defect reconstructions using nasoseptal flaps and their distinction from neoplasm.

K O Learned1, N D Adappa2, J Y K Lee3, J G Newman2, J N Palmer2, L A Loevner4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
PURPOSE: Endoscopic endonasal approach is the procedure of choice for the resection of ventral skull base neoplasms, with defect closure requiring multilayer reconstruction. This study evaluates the temporal MR imaging evolution of nasoseptal flaps and free grafts used in endoscopic skull base reconstruction.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-nine follow-up brain MRIs of 22 patients who had endoscopic skull base reconstruction using 26 nasoseptal flaps combined with 8 collagen-matrix dural grafts, 10 fascia lata grafts, and 10 intracranial fat grafts were retrospectively reviewed. Temporal changes in signal intensity, enhancement, thickness, and the configuration of reconstructive layers were evaluated. Tissue with signal intensity or enhancement different from that of normal evolving reconstructive layers at the surgical bed was evaluated, and its association with clinically confirmed tumor was assessed with the Fisher exact test.
RESULTS: All normal reconstructive layers were retracted to cranial defects and showed maturation of imaging features within 2-6 months. The immediate postoperative T2-isointensity to brain and enhancement of nasoseptal flaps persisted, but the flap thickness was reduced by 20%-30% (average thickness, 4.5 ± 1.3 mm); additionally, the C shape and vascular pedicle of the nasoseptal flaps became indistinct, but the flap location remained unchanged. The initial appearance of the nonenhancing fascia lata with variable T2 signal intensity became enhancing with increasing T2-hypointensity and a graft-thickness reduction of ≥50% (average thickness, 3.5 ± 1.6 mm). All fat grafts showed progressive resorption. In 6 patients, abnormal tissue represented residual or recurrent tumor (P = .0001).
CONCLUSIONS: Maturation and stability of multilayer endoscopic skull base reconstructions on MR imaging occurs within 2-6 months postoperatively. Understanding of the normal imaging evolution of endoscopic skull base reconstructions is essential to distinguish them from neoplasms.
© 2014 by American Journal of Neuroradiology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24457820      PMCID: PMC7965128          DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A3853

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol        ISSN: 0195-6108            Impact factor:   3.825


  15 in total

1.  Endoscopic, endonasal resection of craniopharyngiomas: analysis of outcome including extent of resection, cerebrospinal fluid leak, return to preoperative productivity, and body mass index.

Authors:  Lewis Z Leng; Jeffrey P Greenfield; Mark M Souweidane; Vijay K Anand; Theodore H Schwartz
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 4.654

2.  Pituitary adenomas: findings of postoperative MR imaging.

Authors:  E Steiner; E Knosp; C J Herold; J Kramer; R Stiglbauer; K Staniszewski; H Imhof
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1992-11       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 3.  Endoscopic skull base reconstruction of large dural defects: a systematic review of published evidence.

Authors:  Richard J Harvey; Priscilla Parmar; Raymond Sacks; Adam M Zanation
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2012-01-17       Impact factor: 3.325

Review 4.  Endoscopic endonasal skull base surgery: past, present and future.

Authors:  Paolo Castelnuovo; Iacopo Dallan; Paolo Battaglia; Maurizio Bignami
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2010-01-09       Impact factor: 2.503

5.  MR imaging evaluation of endoscopic cranial base reconstruction with pedicled nasoseptal flap following endoscopic endonasal skull base surgery.

Authors:  Kim O Learned; Nithin D Adappa; Laurie A Loevner; James N Palmer; Jason G Newman; John Y K Lee
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2012-12-03       Impact factor: 3.528

6.  Pituitary adenomas: early postoperative MR imaging after transsphenoidal resection.

Authors:  P H Yoon; D I Kim; P Jeon; S I Lee; S K Lee; S H Kim
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2001 Jun-Jul       Impact factor: 3.825

7.  Endoscopic endonasal skull base surgery: analysis of complications in the authors' initial 800 patients.

Authors:  Amin B Kassam; Daniel M Prevedello; Ricardo L Carrau; Carl H Snyderman; Ajith Thomas; Paul Gardner; Adam Zanation; Bulent Duz; S Tonya Stefko; Karin Byers; Michael B Horowitz
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  2010-12-17       Impact factor: 5.115

Review 8.  Endoscopic skull base surgery: a comprehensive comparison with open transcranial approaches.

Authors:  Ricardo J Komotar; Robert M Starke; Daniel M S Raper; Vijay K Anand; Theodore H Schwartz
Journal:  Br J Neurosurg       Date:  2012-02-10       Impact factor: 1.596

9.  Expanded endoscopic endonasal approach for anterior cranial base and suprasellar lesions: indications and limitations.

Authors:  Amir R Dehdashti; Ahmed Ganna; Ian Witterick; Fred Gentili
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 4.654

10.  Endoscopic reconstruction of the cranial base using a pedicled nasoseptal flap.

Authors:  Amin B Kassam; Ajith Thomas; Ricardo L Carrau; Carl H Snyderman; Allan Vescan; Daniel Prevedello; Arlan Mintz; Paul Gardner
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 4.654

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Comprehensive review on rhino-neurosurgery.

Authors:  Werner Hosemann; Henry W S Schroeder
Journal:  GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2015-12-22
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.