Sinonasal quality of life in patients after an endoscopic endonasal surgery of a sellar tumour.

Endoscopic endonasal approach uses the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses to access the cranial base and may be a source of post-surgical morbidity in many patients with a sellar tumour. The objective of the presented study was to evaluate sinonasal quality of life and assess the effect of chosen reconstruction of the cranial base on the final condition. 65 patients, 33 male and 32 female who underwent an endoscopic endonasal surgery due to sellar expansion, were included into this prospective study. Sinonasal quality of life was evaluated using the Sinonasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22) questionnaire before the surgery and six months after the surgery. Sinonasal quality of life was evaluated for the total cohort of patients and for patients after reconstruction (fascia lata, muscle) and without reconstruction. The minimum follow-up period was one year. There was no significant difference between the score (SNOT-22) before the surgery (average 14.4 points) and after the surgery (average 17.5 points), p = 0.067 in the whole cohort. Statistically significant differences were found in the following items-the need to blow nose, nasal congestion, loss of smell and taste, and thick discharge from the nose. The comparison of subgroups with and without the reconstruction yielded statistically significant differences in favour of patients with reconstruction in the following items-lack of high-quality sleep and feeling exhaustion. The endoscopic endonasal approach in patients with a sellar tumour is a gentle method with minimal effects on sinonasal quality of life over a period longer than six months. The most common complaints are the need to blow nose, nasal congestion, loss of smell and taste, and thick discharge from the nose. Cranial base reconstruction using the muscle and fascia lata seems to be a potential factor positively influencing sinonasal quality of life.

[Minimally Invasive Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Instrumentation - Outcomes at 24-Month Follow-up]. / Minimálne invazivní zadní mezitelová fúze a instrumentace ­ výsledky po 24 mesících sledování.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY Minimally invasive posterior lumbar interbody fusion and percutaneous instrumentation were introduced in the clinical practice with the aim to reduce the damage to musculoligamentous structures associated with open surgeries. The purpose of the study is to evaluate the clinical outcomes, radiological results and complications of the group of patients operated with the use of the minimally invasive posterior lumbar interbody fusion technique. MATERIAL AND METHODS The group of 31 patients operated for lumbar degenerative disc disease was followed-up prospectively. The surgical technique included a unilateral microsurgical decompression of the spinal canal with the insertion of interbody cages supplemented by percutaneous transpedicular fixation. The clinical outcomes were evaluated by means of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Macnab classification, VAS score for low back pain (VAS LBP) and lower extremity pain (VAS LE) at 2, 6, 12 and 24 months postoperatively. The success rate of interbody fusion and complications was also assessed. RESULTS The inclusion criteria were met by 29 patients. The mean preoperative ODI score of 68.4 decreased to 25.1 at two-year follow-up (p 0.001). Based on the modified Macnab scale excellent and good outcomes were achieved at two-year-followup by 82.4% patients. The mean value of VAS LBP score decreased from 6.2 to 2.1 and in case of VAS LE from 5.38 to 1.34 (p ˂ 0.001). The mean time of operation was 157 minutes. Solid interbody fusion was achieved in 80% of patients. In one case, revision surgery for dislocation of the interbody cage was performed one year after the operation. A total of five misplaced transpedicular screws (5.2%) were recorded. DISCUSSION Dorsal minimally invasive spinal operational techniques, when compared with the open surgery, result in less iatrogenic injury to paravertebral muscles. From a short-term perspective, there is also less blood loss and lower frequency of infectious complications. Together with the reduction of postoperative pain and shorter hospital stay, they enable faster recovery and rehabilitation with comparable clinical effectiveness of the procedure. Apart from the above-mentioned benefits, also some shortcomings are discussed such as higher frequency of complications, longer time of operation, higher occurrence of implant malposition and higher exposure of the patient and the surgeon to radiation. CONCLUSIONS The minimally invasive posterior lumbar interbody fusion technique resulted in a statistically significant clinical improvement in the ODI, Macnab scale, VAS LBP and VAS LE scores. The percutaneous instrumentation technique shows an acceptable rate of incorrectly inserted screws. Key words: degenerative disc disease, minimally invasive spinal surgery, posterior lumbar interbody fusion, spine stabilization, lumbar interbody fusion complications.