The rhinopharyngeal flap for reconstruction of lower clival and craniovertebral junction defects

View More View Less
  • 1 Departments of Neurosurgery and
  • | 2 Otolaryngology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Restricted access

Purchase Now

USD  $45.00

JNS + Pediatrics - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $515.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $612.00
Print or Print + Online

OBJECTIVE

The endoscopic endonasal approach (EEA) to the lower clivus and craniovertebral junction (CVJ) has been traditionally performed via resection of the nasopharyngeal soft tissues. Alternatively, an inferiorly based rhinopharyngeal (RP) flap (RPF) can be dissected to help reconstruct the postoperative defect and separate it from the oropharynx. To date, there is no evidence regarding the viability and potential clinical impact of the RPF. The aim of this study was to assess RPF viability and its impact on clinical outcome.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort of 60 patients who underwent EEA to the lower clivus and CVJ was studied. The RPF was used in 30 patients (RPF group), and the nasopharyngeal soft tissues were resected in 30 patients (control group).

RESULTS

Chordoma was the most common surgical indication in both groups (47% in the RPF group vs 63% in the control group, p = 0.313), followed by odontoid pannus (20% in the RPF group vs 10%, p = 0.313). The two groups did not significantly differ in terms of extent of tumor (p = 0.271), intraoperative CSF leak (p = 0.438), and skull base reconstruction techniques other than the RPF (nasoseptal flap, p = 0.301; fascia lata, p = 0.791; inlay graft, p = 0.793; and prophylactic lumbar drain, p = 0.781). Postoperative soft-tissue enhancement covering the lower clivus and CVJ observed on MRI was significantly higher in the RPF group (100% vs 26%, p < 0.001). The RPF group had a significantly lower rate of nasoseptal flap necrosis (3% vs 20%, p = 0.044) and surgical site infection (3% vs 27%, p = 0.026) while having similar rates of postoperative CSF leakage (17% in the RPF group vs 20%, p = 0.739) and meningitis (7% in the RPF group vs 17%, p = 0.424). Oropharyngeal bacterial flora dominated the infections in the control group but not those in the RPF group, suggesting that the RPF acted as a barrier between the nasopharynx and oropharynx.

CONCLUSIONS

The RPF provides viable vascularized tissue coverage to the lower clivus and CVJ. Its use was associated with decreased rates of nasoseptal flap necrosis and local infection, likely due to separation from the oropharynx.

ABBREVIATIONS

CVJ = craniovertebral junction; EEA = endoscopic endonasal approach; ICG = indocyanine green; RP = rhinopharyngeal; RPF = RP flap; SNOT-22 = Sino-Nasal Outcome Test.

Illustration from Fan et al. (pp 1298–1309). Copyright Jun Fan. Published with permission.

JNS + Pediatrics - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $515.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $612.00
  • 1

    Kassam AB, Snyderman C, Gardner P, et al. The expanded endonasal approach: a fully endoscopic transnasal approach and resection of the odontoid process: technical case report. Neurosurgery. 2005;57(1)(suppl):E213–E213.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Spina A, Gagliardi F, Abarca-Olivas J, et al. Endonasal endoscopic and transoral approaches to the craniovertebral junction and the clival region: a comparative anatomical study. World Neurosurg. 2019;132:e116e123.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Kahilogullari G, Eroglu U, Yakar F, et al. Endoscopic endonasal approaches to craniovertebral junction pathologies: a single-center experience. Turk Neurosurg. 2019;29(4):486492.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Doglietto F, Belotti F, Qiu J, et al. Endonasal and transoral approaches to the craniovertebral junction: a quantitative anatomical study. Acta Neurochir Suppl. 2019;125:3744.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Aldahak N, Richter B, Bemora JS, et al. The endoscopic endonasal approach to cranio-cervical junction: the complete panel. Pan Afr Med J. 2017;27:277.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Ponce-Gómez JA, Ortega-Porcayo LA, Soriano-Barón HE, et al. Evolution from microscopic transoral to endoscopic endonasal odontoidectomy. Neurosurg Focus. 2014;37(4):E15.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Yen Y-S, Chang P-Y, Huang W-C, et al. Endoscopic transnasal odontoidectomy without resection of nasal turbinates: clinical outcomes of 13 patients. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;21(6):929937.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Tan SH, Ganesan D, Prepageran N, Waran V. A minimally invasive endoscopic transnasal approach to the craniovertebral junction in the paediatric population. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2014;271(11):31013105.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Wu JC, Huang WC, Cheng H, et al. Endoscopic transnasal transclival odontoidectomy: a new approach to decompression: technical case report. Neurosurgery. 2008;63(1)(suppl 1):ONSE92ONSE94.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Choudhri O, Mindea SA, Feroze A, et al. Experience with intraoperative navigation and imaging during endoscopic transnasal spinal approaches to the foramen magnum and odontoid. Neurosurg Focus. 2014;36(3):E4.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Gempt J, Lehmberg J, Grams AE, et al. Endoscopic transnasal resection of the odontoid: case series and clinical course. Eur Spine J. 2011;20(4):661666.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Iacoangeli M, Gladi M, Alvaro L, et al. Endoscopic endonasal odontoidectomy with anterior C1 arch preservation in elderly patients affected by rheumatoid arthritis. Spine J. 2013;13(5):542548.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Gladi M, Iacoangeli M, Specchia N, et al. Endoscopic transnasal odontoid resection to decompress the bulbo-medullary junction: a reliable anterior minimally invasive technique without posterior fusion. Eur Spine J. 2012;21(1)(suppl 1):S55S60.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Ogiwara T, Miyaoka Y, Nakamura T, et al. Endoscopic endonasal odontoidectomy in the hybrid operating room. World Neurosurg. 2019;131:137140.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Mazzatenta D, Zoli M, Mascari C, et al. Endoscopic endonasal odontoidectomy: clinical series. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39(10):846853.

  • 16

    Yu Y, Wang X, Zhang X, et al. Endoscopic transnasal odontoidectomy to treat basilar invagination with congenital osseous malformations. Eur Spine J. 2013;22(5):11271136.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    Lee A, Sommer D, Reddy K, et al. Endoscopic transnasal approach to the craniocervical junction. Skull Base. 2010;20(3):199205.

  • 18

    Chabot JD, Patel CR, Hughes MA, et al. Nasoseptal flap necrosis: a rare complication of endoscopic endonasal surgery. J Neurosurg. 2018;128(5):14631472.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    van Uffelen R, van Saene HK, Fidler V, Löwenberg A. Oropharyngeal flora as a source of bacteria colonizing the lower airways in patients on artificial ventilation. Intensive Care Med. 1984;10(5):233237.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    Ylikoski J, Savolainen S, Jousimies-Somer H. Bacterial flora in the nasopharynx and nasal cavity of healthy young men. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec. 1989;51(1):5055.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    Odutola A, Antonio M, Owolabi O, et al. Comparison of the prevalence of common bacterial pathogens in the oropharynx and nasopharynx of gambian infants. PLoS One. 2013;8(9):e75558.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22

    Lieberman D, Shleyfer E, Castel H, et al. Nasopharyngeal versus oropharyngeal sampling for isolation of potential respiratory pathogens in adults. J Clin Microbiol. 2006;44(2):525528.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23

    Lemon KP, Klepac-Ceraj V, Schiffer HK, et al. Comparative analyses of the bacterial microbiota of the human nostril and oropharynx. MBio. 2010;1(3):e00129-10.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24

    Ohara-Nemoto Y, Kishi K, Satho M, et al. Infective endocarditis caused by Granulicatella elegans originating in the oral cavity. J Clin Microbiol. 2005;43(3):14051407.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25

    Zanation AM, Carrau RL, Snyderman CH, et al. Nasoseptal flap reconstruction of high flow intraoperative cerebral spinal fluid leaks during endoscopic skull base surgery. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2009;23(5):518521.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26

    Battaglia P, Turri-Zanoni M, De Bernardi F, et al. Septal flip flap for anterior skull base reconstruction after endoscopic resection of sinonasal cancers: preliminary outcomes. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2016;36(3):194198.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27

    Learned KO, Adappa ND, Lee JY, et al. MR imaging evolution of endoscopic cranial defect reconstructions using nasoseptal flaps and their distinction from neoplasm. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2014;35(6):11821189.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28

    Jyotirmay H, Saxena SK, Ramesh AS, et al. Assessing the viability of Hadad flap by postoperative contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. J Clin Diagn Res. 2017;11(6):MC01MC03.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29

    Deepa A, Nair BJ, Sivakumar T, Joseph AP. Uncommon opportunistic fungal infections of oral cavity: a review. J Oral Maxillofac Pathol. 2014;18(2):235243.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 298 298 179
Full Text Views 97 97 72
PDF Downloads 135 135 97
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0