Ventriculostomy related infection risk factors

Ventriculostomy related infection risk factors

A total of 15 supposed influencing factors includes: age, age & sex interactions, coinfection, catheter insertion outside the hospital, catheter type, CSF leakage, CSF sampling frequency, diagnosis, duration of catheterization, ICP > 20 mmHg, irrigation, multiple catheter, neurosurgical operation, reduced CSF glucose at catheter insertion and sex 1).


In a large series of patients, ventriculostomy related infection (VRI) was associated with a longer ICU stay, but its presence did not influence survival. A longer duration of ventriculostomy catheter monitoring in patients with VRI might be due to an increased volume of drained CSF during infection. Risk factors associated with VRIs are SAH, IVH, craniotomy, and coinfection 2).


A retrospective cohort study strengthens a growing body of works suggesting the importance of inoculation of skin flora as a critical risk factor in ventriculostomy related infections, underscoring the importance of drain changes only when clinically indicated and, that as soon as clinically permitted, catheters should be removed 3).


Associated with a longer ICU stay, but its presence did not influence survival. A longer duration of ventriculostomy catheter monitoring in patients with VAI might be due to an increased volume of drained CSF during infection. Risk factors associated with VAIs are subarachnoid hemorrhage(SAH), intraventricular hemorrhage IVH, craniotomy, and coinfection 4).

The risk of infection increases with increasing duration of catheterization and with repeated insertions. The use of local antibiotic irrigation or systemic antibiotics does not appear to reduce the risk of VAI. Routine surveillance cultures of CSF were no more likely to detect infection than cultures obtained when clinically indicated. These findings need to be considered in infection control policies addressing this important issue 5).


An increased risk of infection has been observed in patients with subarachnoid or intraventricular hemorrhage, in patients with concurrent systemic infections as well as with longer duration of catheterization, cerebrospinal (CSF) leakage, and frequent manipulation of the EVD system 6) 7) 8).

Many studies have been conducted to identify risk factors of EVD-related infections. However, none of these risk factors could be confirmed in a cohort of patients. Furthermore they not show any difference in infection rates between patients who were placed in single- or multibed rooms, respectively 9).


Interestingly no risk factor for EVD-related infection could be identified in a retrospective single center study 10).

References

1)

Sorinola A, Buki A, Sandor J, Czeiter E. Risk Factors of External Ventricular Drain Infection: Proposing a Model for Future Studies. Front Neurol. 2019 Mar 15;10:226. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2019.00226. eCollection 2019. Review. PubMed PMID: 30930840; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6428739.
2)

Bota DP, Lefranc F, Vilallobos HR, Brimioulle S, Vincent JL. Ventriculostomy-related infections in critically ill patients: a 6-year experience. J Neurosurg. 2005 Sep;103(3):468-72. PubMed PMID: 16235679.
3)

Katzir M, Lefkowitz JJ, Ben-Reuven D, Fuchs SJ, Hussein K, Sviri G. Decreasing external ventricular drain related infection rates with duration-independent, clinically indicated criteria for drain revision: A retrospective study. World Neurosurg. 2019 Aug 2. pii: S1878-8750(19)32121-7. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2019.07.205. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 31382072.
4)

Bota DP, Lefranc F, Vilallobos HR, Brimioulle S, Vincent JL. Ventriculostomy-related infections in critically ill patients: a 6-year experience. J Neurosurg. 2005 Sep;103(3):468-72. PubMed PMID: 16235679.
5)

Arabi Y, Memish ZA, Balkhy HH, Francis C, Ferayan A, Al Shimemeri A, Almuneef MA. Ventriculostomy-associated infections: incidence and risk factors. Am J Infect Control. 2005 Apr;33(3):137-43. PubMed PMID: 15798667.
6)

Camacho E. F., Boszczowski Í., Basso M., Jeng B. C. P., Freire M. P., Guimarães T., Teixeira M. J., Costa S. F. Infection rate and risk factors associated with infections related to external ventricular drain. Infection. 2011;39(1):47–51. doi: 10.1007/s15010-010-0073-5.
7)

Kim J.-H., Desai N. S., Ricci J., Stieg P. E., Rosengart A. J., Hrtl R., Fraser J. F. Factors contributing to ventriculostomy infection. World Neurosurgery. 2012;77(1):135–140. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2011.04.017.
8)

Mayhall C. G., Archer N. H., Lamb V. A., Spadora A. C., Baggett J. W., Ward J. D., Narayan R. K. Ventriculostomy-related infections. A positive epidemiologic study. The New England Journal of Medicine. 1984;310(9):553–559. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198403013100903.
9)

Hagel S, Bruns T, Pletz MW, Engel C, Kalff R, Ewald C. External Ventricular Drain Infections: Risk Factors and Outcome. Interdiscip Perspect Infect Dis. 2014;2014:708531. Epub 2014 Nov 17. PubMed PMID: 25484896; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4251652.
10)

Hagel S, Bruns T, Pletz MW, Engel C, Kalff R, Ewald C. External ventricular drain infections: risk factors and outcome. Interdiscip Perspect Infect Dis. 2014;2014:708531. doi: 10.1155/2014/708531. Epub 2014 Nov 17. PubMed PMID: 25484896; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4251652.

Controversies in Skull Base Surgery

Controversies in Skull Base Surgery

by Andrew Little (Author), Michael Mooney (Author)

List Price:$199.99

Buy

State of the art approaches and insightful discussions on challenging topics in skull base surgery.

Advances in endoscopic, microsurgical, radiosurgical, and pharmacotherapeutic strategies have revolutionized the treatment of skull basepathologies. Controversies in Skull Base Surgery, edited by Andrew Little and Michael Mooney and authored by esteemed multidisciplinary contributors, focuses on management strategies and treatment options for a wide range of skull base tumors, while addressing the most urgent and challenging questions facing skull base surgeons today.

Throughout nine sections and 46 chapters, experts describe the treatment of neoplasms such as vestibular schwannomameningiomapituitary adenomacraniopharyngiomachordoma, cranial nerve schwannoma, sinonasal malignancies, and others. In many chapters, authors provide instructional case studies and suggestions for future studies to help clarify areas of controversy. This textbook is unique in that it tackles problems typically minimized or ignored by other texts that impact a patient’s quality of life and recovery.

Key Highlights

Reader-friendly tables feature concise summaries, author pearls, and levels of available evidence Pearls and insights on hotly debated issues such as the role of radiosurgery, surgery vs. medical management, radical resection vs. subtotal resection, and proton-beam vs. photon therapy for various pathologic conditions.

Controversies not frequently discussed in depth, including the use of lumbar drains, postoperative antibiotics, and cerebral revascularization in skull base surgery; multidisciplinary collaboration in endoscopic endonasal surgery; skull base reconstruction techniques; and the future of robotics in skull base surgery.

This stellar resource will benefit all residents and advanced practice providers who evaluate and treat patients with skull base pathologies, including neurosurgeons, otolaryngologists, and radiation and medical oncologists.

This book includes complimentary access to a digital copy on https://medone.thieme.com.

Craniopharyngioma endoscopic endonasal approach

Craniopharyngioma endoscopic endonasal approach

The highest priority of current surgical craniopharyngioma treatment is to maximize tumor removal without compromising the patients’ long-term functional outcome. Surgical damage to the hypothalamus may be avoided or at least ameliorated with a precise knowledge regarding the type of adherence for each case.

Endoscopic endonasal approach, has been shown to achieve higher rates of hypothalamic preservation regardless of the degree of involvement by tumor 1) 2).

EES was associated with similar, if not better, extent of resection and significantly less ischemic injury than open surgery. Pseudoaneurysms were only seen in the open surgical group. Weight gain was also less prevalent in the EES cohort and appears be correlated with extent of ischemic injury at time of surgery 3).


Schwartz et al., from the Weill Cornell Brain and Spine Center, compared surgical results for Endoscopic skull base surgery (ESBS) with transcranial surgery (TCS) for several different pathologies over two different time periods (prior to 2012 and 2012-2017) to see how results have evolved over time. Pathologies examined were craniopharyngiomaanterior skull base meningiomaesthesioneuroblastomachordoma, and chondrosarcoma.

ESBS offers clear advantages over TCS for most craniopharyngiomas and chordomas. For well-selected cases of planum sphenoidale and tuberculum sellae meningiomas, ESBS has similar rates of resection with higher rates of visual improvement, and more recent results with lower CSF leaks make the complication rates similar between the two approaches. TCS offers a higher rate of resection with fewer complications for olfactory groove meningiomas. ESBS is preferred for lower-grade esthesioneuroblastomas, but higher-grade tumors often still require a craniofacialapproach. There are few data on chondrosarcomas, but early results show that ESBS appears to offer clear advantages for minimizing morbiditywith similar rates of resection, as long as surgeons are familiar with more complex inferolateral approaches.

ESBS is maturing into a well-established approach that is clearly in the patients’ best interest when applied by experienced surgeons for appropriate pathology. Ongoing critical reevaluation of outcomes is essential for ensuring optimal results 4).

Qiao et al., conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. They conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed to identify relevant studies. Pituitary, hypothalamus functions and recurrence were used as outcome measures. A total of 39 cohort studies involving 3079 adult patients were included in the comparison. Among these studies, 752 patients across 17 studies underwent endoscopic transsphenoidal resection, and 2327 patients across 23 studies underwent transcranial resection. More patients in the endoscopic group (75.7%) had visual symptoms and endocrine symptoms (60.2%) than did patients in the transcranial group (67.0%, p = 0.038 and 42.0%, p = 0.016). There was no significant difference in hypopituitarism and pan-hypopituitarism after surgery between the two groups: 72.2% and 43.7% of the patients in endoscopic group compared to 80.7% and 48.3% in the transcranial group (p = 0.140 and p = 0.713). We observed same proportions of transient and permanent diabetes insipidusin both groups. Similar recurrence was observed in both groups (p = 0.131). Pooled analysis showed that neither weight gain (p = 0.406) nor memory impairment (p = 0.995) differed between the two groups. Meta-regression analysis revealed that gross total resection contributed to the heterogeneity of recurrence proportion (p < 0.001). They observed similar proportions of endocrine outcomes and recurrence in both endoscopic and transcranial groups. More recurrences were observed in studies with lower proportions of gross total resection 5).


The extended endoscopic transsphenoidal approach has been more recently developed as a potentially surgically aggressive, yet minimal access, alternative.

Komotar et al performed a systematic review of the available published reports after endoscope-assisted endonasal approaches and compared their results with transsphenoidal purely microscope-based or transcranial microscope-based techniques.

The endoscopic endonasal approach is a safe and effective alternative for the treatment of certain craniopharyngiomas. Larger lesions with more lateral extension may be more suitable for an open approach, and further follow-up is needed to assess the long-term efficacy of this minimal access approach 6)

Extended endoscopic transsphenoidal approach have gained interest. Surgeons have advocated for both approaches, and at present there is no consensus whether one approach is superior to the other.

With the widespread use of endoscopes in endonasal surgery, the endoscopic transtuberculum transplanum approach have been proposed as an alternative surgical route for removal of different types of suprasellar tumors, including solid craniopharyngiomas in patients with normal pituitary function and small sella.

As part of a minimally disruptive treatment paradigm, the extended endoscopic transsphenoidal approach has the potential to improve rates of resection, improve postoperative visual recovery, and minimize surgical morbidity 7).

The endoscopic endonasal approach has become a valid surgical technique for the management of craniopharyngiomas. It provides an excellent corridor to infra- and supradiaphragmatic midline craniopharyngiomas, including the management of lesions extending into the third ventricle chamber. Even though indications for this approach are rigorously lesion based, the data confirm its effectiveness in a large patient series 8).

The endoscopic endonasal approach offers advantages in the management of craniopharyngiomas that historically have been approached via the transsphenoidal approach (i.e., purely intrasellar or intra-suprasellar infradiaphragmatic, preferably cystic lesions in patients with panhypopituitarism).

Use of the extended endoscopic endonasal approach overcomes the limits of the transsphenoidal route to the sella enabling the management of different purely suprasellar and retrosellar cystic/solid craniopharyngiomas, regardless of the sellar size or pituitary function 9).

They provide acceptable results comparable to those for traditional craniotomies. Endoscopic endonasal surgery is not limited to adults and actually shows higher resection rates in the pediatric population 10).

Case series

References

1)

Tan TSE, Patel L, Gopal-Kothandapani JS, Ehtisham S, Ikazoboh EC, Hayward R, et al: The neuroendocrine sequelae of paediatric craniopharyngioma: a 40-year meta-data analysis of 185 cases from three UK centres. Eur J Endocrinol 176:359–369, 2017
2)

Yokoi H, Kodama S, Kogashiwa Y, Matsumoto Y, Ohkura Y, Nakagawa T, et al: An endoscopic endonasal approach for early-stage olfactory neuroblastoma: an evaluation of 2 cases with minireview of literature. Case Rep Otolaryngol 2015:541026, 2015
3)

Madsen PJ, Buch VP, Douglas JE, Parasher AK, Lerner DK, Alexander E, Workman AD, Palmer JN, Lang SS, Kennedy BC, Vossough A, Adappa ND, Storm PB. Endoscopic endonasal resection versus open surgery for pediatric craniopharyngioma: comparison of outcomes and complications. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2019 Jun 7:1-10. doi: 10.3171/2019.4.PEDS18612. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 31174192.
4)

Schwartz TH, Morgenstern PF, Anand VK. Lessons learned in the evolution of endoscopic skull base surgery. J Neurosurg. 2019 Feb 1;130(2):337-346. doi: 10.3171/2018.10.JNS182154. Review. PubMed PMID: 30717035.
5)

Qiao N. Endocrine outcomes of endoscopic versus transcranial resection of craniopharyngiomas: A system review and meta-analysis. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2018 Apr 7;169:107-115. doi: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2018.04.009. [Epub ahead of print] Review. PubMed PMID: 29655011.
6)

Komotar RJ, Starke RM, Raper DM, Anand VK, Schwartz TH. Endoscopic endonasal compared with microscopic transsphenoidal and open transcranial resection of craniopharyngiomas. World Neurosurg. 2012 Feb;77(2):329-41. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2011.07.011. Epub 2011 Nov 1. Review. PubMed PMID: 22501020.
7)

Zacharia BE, Amine M, Anand V, Schwartz TH. Endoscopic Endonasal Management of Craniopharyngioma. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2016 Feb;49(1):201-12. doi: 10.1016/j.otc.2015.09.013. Review. PubMed PMID: 26614838.
8)

Cavallo LM, Frank G, Cappabianca P, Solari D, Mazzatenta D, Villa A, Zoli M, D’Enza AI, Esposito F, Pasquini E. The endoscopic endonasal approach for the management of craniopharyngiomas: a series of 103 patients. J Neurosurg. 2014 May 2. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 24785324.
9)

Cavallo LM, Solari D, Esposito F, Villa A, Minniti G, Cappabianca P. The Role of the Endoscopic Endonasal Route in the Management of Craniopharyngiomas. World Neurosurg. 2014 Dec;82(6S):S32-S40. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2014.07.023. Review. PubMed PMID: 25496633.
10)

Koutourousiou M, Gardner PA, Fernandez-Miranda JC, Tyler-Kabara EC, Wang EW, Snyderman CH. Endoscopic endonasal surgery for craniopharyngiomas: surgical outcome in 64 patients. J Neurosurg. 2013 Nov;119(5):1194-207. doi: 10.3171/2013.6.JNS122259. Epub 2013 Aug 2. PubMed PMID: 23909243.
WhatsApp WhatsApp us
%d bloggers like this: