Comparative Analysis of Endoscope Obscuration With Utilization of an Endonasal Access Guide for Endonasal Skull Base Surgery.
G. Barkhoudarian,Daniel F Kelly,C. Griffiths,David Zhou,R. Mallari,Michael B Avery,Josh Emerson,Usman Khan
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1227/ons.0000000000001267
IF: 2.817
2024-07-05
Operative Neurosurgery
Abstract:BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
In endoscopic endonasal approaches (EEAs) for skull base pathologies, endoscope view obscuration remains a persistent, time-consuming, and distracting issue for surgeons and may result in increased operative time. The endonasal access guide (EAG) has been demonstrated as a possible adjunct to minimize these events. However, to date, there have been no comparative studies performed and the potential time savings by using EAGs have yet to be quantified. This cohort study aimed to determine the operative efficiency benefits of the EAG in EEA operations.
METHODS
Analysis of EEA operative videos from an EAG cohort (n = 20) and a control cohort (n = 20) was performed, assessing 12-minute segments in the first, middle, and last third of each operation. The first segment in each cohort was selected before EAG placement, serving as an internal control. Every endoscope lens soiling instance was counted (measured as cleaning actions per minute), timed (obscuration time %), and identified as a withdrawal, irrigation, or other cleaning action. Perioperative variables including skull base repair and postoperative cerebrospinal fluid leakage were assessed.
RESULTS
Within the EAG cohort, obscuration time was reduced in the middle and last third compared with the first third (3.73% [CI: 2.39-5.07] vs 12.97% [CI: 10.24-15.70], P < .001; 4.19% [CI: 2.83-5.55] vs 12.97% [CI: 10.24-15.70], P < .001) and cleaning actions were also significantly reduced by EAG (0.69/min [CI: 0.39-0.99] vs 1.67/min [CI: 1.34-2.00], P = .001; 0.66/min [CI: 0.35-0.97] vs 1.67/min [CI: 1.34-2.00], P < .001). Between the control and EAG cohorts, there was no significant difference between obscuration time and cleaning actions in the first third (9.33% vs 12.97%, P = .086; 1.34/min vs 1.67/min, P = .151) or in the middle third (6.24% vs 3.73%, P = .140; 0.80/min vs 0.69/min, P = .335), but there was a significant difference in the last third (9.25% [CI: 6.95-11.55] vs 4.19% [CI: 2.83-5.55], P < .001; 0.95/min [CI: 0.73-1.17] vs 0.66/min [CI: 0.35-0.97], P = .018).
CONCLUSION
EAG significantly reduces lens obscurations and cleaning events, particularly during the intradural portion of operations. This technology may offer a greater time-saving impact with patients undergoing long EEA operations.
Medicine