Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39963813›Full record

ArticleHead & neck2025

Postoperative Management Following Endoscopic Skull Base Reconstruction: A Multidisciplinary Cross-Sectional Survey.

Khodayar Goshtasbi, Arash Abiri, Vidit Talati, Jagatkumar A Patel, Theodore V Nguyen, Jonathan C Pang, John R Craig, Peter Papagiannopoulos, Katie M Phillips, Bobby A Tajudeen and 6 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Head & neck, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Khodayar GoshtasbiDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of California, Irvine, Orange, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0045-2547
Arash AbiriDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of California, Irvine, Orange, California, USA.
Vidit TalatiDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Jagatkumar A PatelKaiser Permanente Orange County, Irvine, California, USA.
Theodore V NguyenDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of California, Irvine, Orange, California, USA.
Jonathan C PangDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of California, Irvine, Orange, California, USA.
John R CraigDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Henry Ford Health, Detroit, Michigan, USA.
Peter PapagiannopoulosDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Katie M PhillipsDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
Bobby A TajudeenDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Nithin D AdappaDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
James N PalmerDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Ahmad R SedaghatDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
Eric W WangDepartment of Otolaryngology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Shirley Y SuDepartment of Head and Neck Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3903-8204
Edward C KuanDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of California, Irvine, Orange, California, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is limited consensus on management protocols and practice patterns following endoscopic skull base surgery (ESBS).

methodsAn online-based survey focusing on ESBS practice patterns was anonymously distributed to the American Rhinologic Society, North American Skull Base Society, and American Head and Neck Society Skull Base Section membership.

resultsA total of 130 surgeons (81.5% in academic positions) completed the survey. Regarding reconstructive materials, 36.9% always used autologous as opposed to synthetic materials, with variation in specific materials used. Lumbar drain was never used by 22.3% of respondents, while high BMI or suspected intracranial hypertension (43.1%) and high-flow leak or large dural defects (50.0%) were indications for lumbar drain usage. There was significant variation in types of nasal packing, type, and duration of postoperative activity restrictions, antibiotic use, and debridement protocols.

conclusionPostoperative management following endoscopic skull base reconstruction is highly complex, with a wide variety of practice patterns. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.

Indexed as

EndoscopyPlastic Surgery ProceduresPostoperative CarePractice Patterns, Physicians'Skull BaseCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMalePostoperative ComplicationsSurveys and Questionnairescerebrospinal fluid leakendoscopic skull base surgerylumbar drainnasal packingskull base defectskull base reconstruction

Identifiers

PMID39963813
PMCPMC12146808

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.