The limits of endoscopic endonasal approaches in young children: a review

Andrew Kobets, Adam Ammar, Kamilah Dowling, Alan Cohen, James Goodrich

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Abstract

Introduction: The endoscopic endonasal approach (EEA) provides visualization of four deep surgical corridors (transcribiform, transtubercular, transsellar, and transclival) with superior illumination and specialized deep-reaching instruments, as compared to microscopic techniques. Several studies have evaluated EEAs in children but do not stratify for the very young of age, whose particularly small nares and developmental anatomy may limit endonasal instrumentation. Methodology: A comprehensive review of EEAs in infants and children to age 4 was performed to determine the limitations in this age group. Results: Eighteen studies were identified describing this approach for pediatric patients and the surgical caveats and limitations were reviewed. In very small children, CSF leaks, meningioencephaloceles, tumors of the anterior skull base, and lesions at the rostral cervical spine have been successfully treated endonasally. While newer studies advocate using 2.7-mm diameter (18-cm length) lenses, 4-mm diameter rigid lenses have been used without technical difficulty. The youngest patient in whom an EEA was used was a 6-week-old for a dermoid resection. Some have advocated that due to the small nares, approaches via bilateral entry are optimal for multiple instruments, however, others, including authors of a series of 28 repaired CSF leaks demonstrate successful single nare access. Discussion: EEAs are associated with less blood loss, are less likely to hinder normal growth of the skull and midface, and allow for the resection of even malignant lesions. Despite the limitations of the frontal, ethmoid, and sphenoid sinuses before age 3, reports have not documented insurmountable difficulty with EEAs even in infants. 2.7-mm diameter endoscopes are favored unilaterally or bilaterally to treat both benign and malignant lesions and preserve the young patient’s facial anatomy better than older methods. Ever improving technology has facilitated the use of this approach in patients it would otherwise be infeasible for in the past, but it still cannot overcome the anatomical constraints of certain young patients in which this approach remains unindicated. Patient selection is therefore of utmost importance and the risks and benefits of more extensive approaches in these cases must be considered.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalChild's Nervous System
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Lenses
Anatomy
Ethmoid Sinus
Sphenoid Sinus
Frontal Sinus
Dermoid Cyst
Endoscopes
Skull Base
Lighting
Skull
Patient Selection
Spine
Age Groups
Pediatrics
Technology
Growth
Neoplasms

Keywords

  • Endonasal
  • Endoscopic
  • Pediatric
  • Skull base
  • Transsphenoidal

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health
  • Clinical Neurology

Cite this

The limits of endoscopic endonasal approaches in young children : a review. / Kobets, Andrew; Ammar, Adam; Dowling, Kamilah; Cohen, Alan; Goodrich, James.

In: Child's Nervous System, 01.01.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Kobets, Andrew ; Ammar, Adam ; Dowling, Kamilah ; Cohen, Alan ; Goodrich, James. / The limits of endoscopic endonasal approaches in young children : a review. In: Child's Nervous System. 2019.
@article{917e975980054c16a904936d80e849e0,
title = "The limits of endoscopic endonasal approaches in young children: a review",
abstract = "Introduction: The endoscopic endonasal approach (EEA) provides visualization of four deep surgical corridors (transcribiform, transtubercular, transsellar, and transclival) with superior illumination and specialized deep-reaching instruments, as compared to microscopic techniques. Several studies have evaluated EEAs in children but do not stratify for the very young of age, whose particularly small nares and developmental anatomy may limit endonasal instrumentation. Methodology: A comprehensive review of EEAs in infants and children to age 4 was performed to determine the limitations in this age group. Results: Eighteen studies were identified describing this approach for pediatric patients and the surgical caveats and limitations were reviewed. In very small children, CSF leaks, meningioencephaloceles, tumors of the anterior skull base, and lesions at the rostral cervical spine have been successfully treated endonasally. While newer studies advocate using 2.7-mm diameter (18-cm length) lenses, 4-mm diameter rigid lenses have been used without technical difficulty. The youngest patient in whom an EEA was used was a 6-week-old for a dermoid resection. Some have advocated that due to the small nares, approaches via bilateral entry are optimal for multiple instruments, however, others, including authors of a series of 28 repaired CSF leaks demonstrate successful single nare access. Discussion: EEAs are associated with less blood loss, are less likely to hinder normal growth of the skull and midface, and allow for the resection of even malignant lesions. Despite the limitations of the frontal, ethmoid, and sphenoid sinuses before age 3, reports have not documented insurmountable difficulty with EEAs even in infants. 2.7-mm diameter endoscopes are favored unilaterally or bilaterally to treat both benign and malignant lesions and preserve the young patient’s facial anatomy better than older methods. Ever improving technology has facilitated the use of this approach in patients it would otherwise be infeasible for in the past, but it still cannot overcome the anatomical constraints of certain young patients in which this approach remains unindicated. Patient selection is therefore of utmost importance and the risks and benefits of more extensive approaches in these cases must be considered.",
keywords = "Endonasal, Endoscopic, Pediatric, Skull base, Transsphenoidal",
author = "Andrew Kobets and Adam Ammar and Kamilah Dowling and Alan Cohen and James Goodrich",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s00381-019-04455-y",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Child's Nervous System",
issn = "0256-7040",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The limits of endoscopic endonasal approaches in young children

T2 - a review

AU - Kobets, Andrew

AU - Ammar, Adam

AU - Dowling, Kamilah

AU - Cohen, Alan

AU - Goodrich, James

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Introduction: The endoscopic endonasal approach (EEA) provides visualization of four deep surgical corridors (transcribiform, transtubercular, transsellar, and transclival) with superior illumination and specialized deep-reaching instruments, as compared to microscopic techniques. Several studies have evaluated EEAs in children but do not stratify for the very young of age, whose particularly small nares and developmental anatomy may limit endonasal instrumentation. Methodology: A comprehensive review of EEAs in infants and children to age 4 was performed to determine the limitations in this age group. Results: Eighteen studies were identified describing this approach for pediatric patients and the surgical caveats and limitations were reviewed. In very small children, CSF leaks, meningioencephaloceles, tumors of the anterior skull base, and lesions at the rostral cervical spine have been successfully treated endonasally. While newer studies advocate using 2.7-mm diameter (18-cm length) lenses, 4-mm diameter rigid lenses have been used without technical difficulty. The youngest patient in whom an EEA was used was a 6-week-old for a dermoid resection. Some have advocated that due to the small nares, approaches via bilateral entry are optimal for multiple instruments, however, others, including authors of a series of 28 repaired CSF leaks demonstrate successful single nare access. Discussion: EEAs are associated with less blood loss, are less likely to hinder normal growth of the skull and midface, and allow for the resection of even malignant lesions. Despite the limitations of the frontal, ethmoid, and sphenoid sinuses before age 3, reports have not documented insurmountable difficulty with EEAs even in infants. 2.7-mm diameter endoscopes are favored unilaterally or bilaterally to treat both benign and malignant lesions and preserve the young patient’s facial anatomy better than older methods. Ever improving technology has facilitated the use of this approach in patients it would otherwise be infeasible for in the past, but it still cannot overcome the anatomical constraints of certain young patients in which this approach remains unindicated. Patient selection is therefore of utmost importance and the risks and benefits of more extensive approaches in these cases must be considered.

AB - Introduction: The endoscopic endonasal approach (EEA) provides visualization of four deep surgical corridors (transcribiform, transtubercular, transsellar, and transclival) with superior illumination and specialized deep-reaching instruments, as compared to microscopic techniques. Several studies have evaluated EEAs in children but do not stratify for the very young of age, whose particularly small nares and developmental anatomy may limit endonasal instrumentation. Methodology: A comprehensive review of EEAs in infants and children to age 4 was performed to determine the limitations in this age group. Results: Eighteen studies were identified describing this approach for pediatric patients and the surgical caveats and limitations were reviewed. In very small children, CSF leaks, meningioencephaloceles, tumors of the anterior skull base, and lesions at the rostral cervical spine have been successfully treated endonasally. While newer studies advocate using 2.7-mm diameter (18-cm length) lenses, 4-mm diameter rigid lenses have been used without technical difficulty. The youngest patient in whom an EEA was used was a 6-week-old for a dermoid resection. Some have advocated that due to the small nares, approaches via bilateral entry are optimal for multiple instruments, however, others, including authors of a series of 28 repaired CSF leaks demonstrate successful single nare access. Discussion: EEAs are associated with less blood loss, are less likely to hinder normal growth of the skull and midface, and allow for the resection of even malignant lesions. Despite the limitations of the frontal, ethmoid, and sphenoid sinuses before age 3, reports have not documented insurmountable difficulty with EEAs even in infants. 2.7-mm diameter endoscopes are favored unilaterally or bilaterally to treat both benign and malignant lesions and preserve the young patient’s facial anatomy better than older methods. Ever improving technology has facilitated the use of this approach in patients it would otherwise be infeasible for in the past, but it still cannot overcome the anatomical constraints of certain young patients in which this approach remains unindicated. Patient selection is therefore of utmost importance and the risks and benefits of more extensive approaches in these cases must be considered.

KW - Endonasal

KW - Endoscopic

KW - Pediatric

KW - Skull base

KW - Transsphenoidal

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85076481669&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85076481669&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00381-019-04455-y

DO - 10.1007/s00381-019-04455-y

M3 - Review article

AN - SCOPUS:85076481669

JO - Child's Nervous System

JF - Child's Nervous System

SN - 0256-7040

ER -