Gretchen M Oakley1, Richard R Orlandi1, Bradford A Woodworth2, Pete S Batra3, Jeremiah A Alt1. 1. Division of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT. 2. Division of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL. 3. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Rush University, Chicago, IL.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Management strategies employed for cases of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) rhinorrhea vary widely because of limited evidence-based guidance. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases from January 1990 through September 2014 to examine 5 endoscopic repair techniques and 8 perioperative management strategies for CSF rhinorrhea. Benefit-harm assessments, value judgments, and recommendations were made based on the available evidence. Study exclusion criteria were language other than English, pre-1990 studies, case reports, and nonrhinologic leak. All authors agreed on recommendations through an iterative process. RESULTS: We reviewed 67 studies examining 13 practices pertinent to the management of CSF rhinorrhea, reaching a highest aggregate grade of evidence of B. The literature does not support the routine use of prophylactic antibiotics or lumbar drainage. Various endoscopic repair materials show similar success rates; however, larger defects may benefit from vascularized grafts. There were no relevant studies to address postoperative activity restrictions. CONCLUSION: Despite relatively low levels of evidence, recommendations for the management of CSF rhinorrhea can be made based on the current literature. Higher-level studies are needed to better determine optimal clinical management approaches.
BACKGROUND: Management strategies employed for cases of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) rhinorrhea vary widely because of limited evidence-based guidance. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases from January 1990 through September 2014 to examine 5 endoscopic repair techniques and 8 perioperative management strategies for CSF rhinorrhea. Benefit-harm assessments, value judgments, and recommendations were made based on the available evidence. Study exclusion criteria were language other than English, pre-1990 studies, case reports, and nonrhinologic leak. All authors agreed on recommendations through an iterative process. RESULTS: We reviewed 67 studies examining 13 practices pertinent to the management of CSF rhinorrhea, reaching a highest aggregate grade of evidence of B. The literature does not support the routine use of prophylactic antibiotics or lumbar drainage. Various endoscopic repair materials show similar success rates; however, larger defects may benefit from vascularized grafts. There were no relevant studies to address postoperative activity restrictions. CONCLUSION: Despite relatively low levels of evidence, recommendations for the management of CSF rhinorrhea can be made based on the current literature. Higher-level studies are needed to better determine optimal clinical management approaches.
Authors: Samuel Bidot; Joshua M Levy; Amit M Saindane; Nelson M Oyesiku; Nancy J Newman; Valérie Biousse Journal: J Neuroophthalmol Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 3.042
Authors: Anna S Englhard; Veronika Volgger; Andreas Leunig; Catalina S Meßmer; Georg J Ledderose Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2018-08-14 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Karam Asmaro; Frederick Yoo; Abdulkader Yassin-Kassab; Michael Bazydlo; Adam M Robin; Jack P Rock; John R Craig Journal: J Neurol Surg B Skull Base Date: 2021-12-17
Authors: Danyal Z Khan; Ahmad M S Ali; Chan Hee Koh; Neil L Dorward; Joan Grieve; Hugo Layard Horsfall; William Muirhead; Thomas Santarius; Wouter R Van Furth; Amir H Zamanipoor Najafabadi; Hani J Marcus Journal: Pituitary Date: 2021-05-10 Impact factor: 4.107