ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022
CSF rhinorrhoea after endonasal intervention to the skull base (CRANIAL): A multicentre prospective observational study.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tailored Postoperative Reconstruction for Low-Grade Cerebrospinal Fluid Leaks in Pituitary Neuroendocrine Tumors.Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society · 2026Article
- Skull Base Reconstruction Following Endoscopic Pituitary Surgery: A Global Survey.Journal of neurological surgery. Part B, Skull base · 2026Article
- Risk Factors for Postoperative Cerebrospinal Fluid Leak Following Endoscopic Transsphenoidal Surgery for Craniopharyngioma: A Multicenter Cohort Study with a Contemporary Surgeon Practice Survey.Research square · 2026Article
- Are Routine Lumbar Drains Necessary for Endoscopic Reconstruction after Resection of Anterior and Central Skull Base Tumors?Journal of neurological surgery. Part B, Skull base · 2026Article
- Article
- Dural repair after intraoperative CSF leakage in endoscopic endonasal skull base surgery without pedicled nasoseptal flap: is it a safe surgical technique?Neurosurgical review · 2025Article
- Identifying research priorities for pituitary adenoma surgery: an international Delphi consensus statement.Pituitary · 2025Article
- The impact of obesity on rates of post-operative CSF leak following endoscopic skull base surgery: results from a prospective international multi-centre cohort study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2024Article
- Machine learning driven prediction of cerebrospinal fluid rhinorrhoea following endonasal skull base surgery: A multicentre prospective observational study.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: Despite progress in endonasal skull-base neurosurgery, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) rhinorrhoea remains common and significant. The CRANIAL study sought to determine 1) the scope of skull-base repair methods used, and 2) corresponding rates of postoperative CSF rhinorrhoea in the endonasal transsphenoidal approach (TSA) and the expanded endonasal approach (EEA) for skull-base tumors. Methods: A prospective observational cohort study of 30 centres performing endonasal skull-base neurosurgery in the UK and Ireland (representing 91% of adult units). Patients were identified for 6 months and followed up for 6 months. Data collection and analysis was guided by our published protocol and pilot studies. Descriptive statistics, univariate and multivariable logistic regression models were used for analysis. Results: A total of 866 patients were included - 726 TSA (84%) and 140 EEA (16%). There was significant heterogeneity in repair protocols across centres. In TSA cases, nasal packing (519/726, 72%), tissue glues (474/726, 65%) and hemostatic agents (439/726, 61%) were the most common skull base repair techniques. Comparatively, pedicled flaps (90/140, 64%), CSF diversion (38/140, 27%), buttresses (17/140, 12%) and gasket sealing (11/140, 9%) were more commonly used in EEA cases. CSF rhinorrhoea (biochemically confirmed or requiring re-operation) occurred in 3.9% of TSA (28/726) and 7.1% of EEA (10/140) cases. A significant number of patients with CSF rhinorrhoea (15/38, 39%) occurred when no intraoperative CSF leak was reported. On multivariate analysis, there may be marginal benefits with using tissue glues in TSA (OR: 0.2, CI: 0.1-0.7, p<0.01), but no other technique reached significance. There was evidence that certain characteristics make CSF rhinorrhoea more likely - such as previous endonasal surgery and the presence of intraoperative CSF leak. Conclusions: There is a wide range of skull base repair techniques used across centres. Overall, CSF rhinorrhoea rates across the UK and Ireland are lower than generally reported in the literature. A large proportion of postoperative leaks occurred in the context of occult intraoperative CSF leaks, and decisions for universal sellar repairs should consider the risks and cost-effectiveness of repair strategies. Future work could include longer-term, higher-volume studies, such as a registry; and high-quality interventional studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.