Download PDF
J Neurol Surg B Skull Base 2017; 78(05): 430-440
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1603907
Original Article
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Costs and Perioperative Outcomes Associated with Open versus Endoscopic Resection of Sinonasal Malignancies with Skull Base Involvement

Terence S. Fu
1   Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
2   Department of Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
,
Eric Monteiro
2   Department of Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
,
Ian Witterick
2   Department of Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
,
Allan Vescan
2   Department of Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
,
Gelareh Zadeh
3   Department of Neurosurgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
,
Fred Gentili
3   Department of Neurosurgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
,
John R. de Almeida
2   Department of Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

05 December 2016

12 May 2017

Publication Date:
30 June 2017 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective To compare financial and perioperative outcomes between endoscopic and open surgical approaches in the surgical management of sinonasal malignancies.

Design Retrospective chart review.

Setting Tertiary care hospital.

Participants Patients undergoing surgical resection of a sinonasal malignancy from January 2000 to December 2014.

Main Outcome Measures In-hospital costs, complications, and length of stay (LOS).

Results Of 106 patients, 91 received open surgery (19 free flap and 72 non-free flap) and 15 were treated with purely endoscopic approaches. Free flaps had a significantly higher average cost, operative time, and LOS compared to both non-free flap (p < 0.001, < 0.001, and < 0.01) and endoscopic (p = 0.01, 0.04, and < 0.01) groups. There were no significant differences in average costs between endoscopic and non-free flap groups ($19,157 vs. $14,806, p = 0.20) or LOS (5.7 vs. 6.4 days, p = 0.72). Compared with the non-free flap group, the endoscopic group had a longer average operative time (8.3 vs. 5.5 hours, p < 0.01) and higher rates of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak (13 vs. 0%, p = 0.01) and intensive care unit (ICU) admission (80 vs. 36%, p < 0.01). Surgical approach (open vs. endoscopic) was not a significant predictor of any financial or perioperative outcome on multivariable analysis.

Conclusion Hospital costs are comparable between endoscopic and open approaches when no free tissue reconstruction is required. Longer operative times, higher CSF leak rates, and our institutional protocol necessitating ICU admission for endoscopic cases may account for the failure to demonstrate cost savings with endoscopic surgery.

Keywords

costs - complications - length of stay - endoscopic surgery - sinonasal malignancy

Authors' Contributions

All authors contributed extensively to the work presented in this paper. T.S.F. and J.R.A. jointly conceived the study design; T.S.F. collected and analyzed the data; T.S.F. interpreted the results and prepared the manuscript under supervision from E.M., I.W., A.V., and J.R.A.; E.M., I.W., A.V., G.Z., F.G., and J.R.A provided technical support and conceptual advice; all authors discussed the results and implications and edited the manuscript.


Funding

None declared.


Note

The study was presented at the North American Skull Base Association at the 27th Annual Meeting in New Orleans, Louisiana on March 5, 2017.


 

  • References

  • 1 Hanna E, DeMonte F, Ibrahim S, Roberts D, Levine N, Kupferman M. Endoscopic resection of sinonasal cancers with and without craniotomy: oncologic results. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009; 135 (12) 1219-1224
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Nicolai P, Battaglia P, Bignami M. , et al. Endoscopic surgery for malignant tumors of the sinonasal tract and adjacent skull base: a 10-year experience. Am J Rhinol 2008; 22 (03) 308-316
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Wellman BJ, Traynelis VC, McCulloch TM, Funk GF, Menezes AH, Hoffman HT. Midline anterior craniofacial approach for malignancy: results of en bloc versus piecemeal resections. Skull Base Surg 1999; 9 (01) 41-46
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Devaiah AK, Andreoli MT. Treatment of esthesioneuroblastoma: a 16-year meta-analysis of 361 patients. Laryngoscope 2009; 119 (07) 1412-1416
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Fu TS, Monteiro E, Muhanna N, Goldstein DP, de Almeida JR. Comparison of outcomes for open versus endoscopic approaches for olfactory neuroblastoma: a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis. Head Neck 2016; 38 (Suppl. 01) E2306-E2316
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Nicolai P, Villaret AB, Bottazzoli M, Rossi E, Valsecchi MG. Ethmoid adenocarcinoma--from craniofacial to endoscopic resections: a single-institution experience over 25 years. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2011; 145 (02) 330-337
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Meccariello G, Deganello A, Choussy O. , et al. Endoscopic nasal versus open approach for the management of sinonasal adenocarcinoma: a pooled-analysis of 1826 patients. Head Neck 2016; 38 (Suppl. 01) E2267-E2274
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 de Almeida JR, Su SY, Koutourousiou M. , et al. Endonasal endoscopic surgery for squamous cell carcinoma of the sinonasal cavities and skull base: oncologic outcomes based on treatment strategy and tumor etiology. Head Neck 2015; 37 (08) 1163-1169
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Moreno MA, Roberts DB, Kupferman ME. , et al. Mucosal melanoma of the nose and paranasal sinuses, a contemporary experience from the M. D. Anderson Cancer Center. Cancer 2010; 116 (09) 2215-2223
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Farquhar D, Kim L, Worrall D. , et al. Propensity score analysis of endoscopic and open approaches to malignant paranasal and anterior skull base tumor outcomes. Laryngoscope 2016; 126 (08) 1724-1729
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Eloy JA, Vivero RJ, Hoang K. , et al. Comparison of transnasal endoscopic and open craniofacial resection for malignant tumors of the anterior skull base. Laryngoscope 2009; 119 (05) 834-840
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Patel SG, Singh B, Stambuk HE. , et al. Craniofacial surgery for esthesioneuroblastoma: report of an international collaborative study. J Neurol Surg B Skull Base 2012; 73 (03) 208-220
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Ganly I, Patel SG, Singh B. , et al. Complications of craniofacial resection for malignant tumors of the skull base: report of an international collaborative study. Head Neck 2005; 27 (06) 445-451
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Ganly I, Patel SG, Singh B. , et al. Craniofacial resection for malignant paranasal sinus tumors: report of an international collaborative study. Head Neck 2005; 27 (07) 575-584
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Castelnuovo P, Turri-Zanoni M, Battaglia P, Antognoni P, Bossi P, Locatelli D. Sinonasal malignancies of anterior skull base: histology-driven treatment strategies. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2016; 49 (01) 183-200
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Stapleton AL, Tyler-Kabara EC, Gardner PA, Snyderman CH. The costs of skull base surgery in the pediatric population. J Neurol Surg B Skull Base 2015; 76 (01) 39-42
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 1987; 40 (05) 373-383
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Statistics Canada. Consumer Price Index, historical summary, 1996 to 2015 (CANSIM, table 326-0021 and Catalogue nos. 62-001-X, 62-010-X and 62-557-X). Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada; 2016
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Verillaud B, Bresson D, Sauvaget E. , et al. Endoscopic endonasal skull base surgery. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis 2012; 129 (04) 190-196
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar