Search

Introduction The aim of the present study was to describe our institution's nine years of experience in the endoscopic endonasal management of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) rhinorrhea and to discuss the causes, sites, and outcomes.  Methodology The medical records of patients diagnosed with CSF rhinorrhea in King Abdulaziz Medical City-Jeddah (KAMC-J) between 2014 and 2023 were retrospectively reviewed, and all relevant information including body mass index, medical and surgical history, and postoperative outcomes were obtained. Results A total of 20 cases were included in the present study, sixteen (80%) of which were females and four (20%) were males. The mean age of participants was 42.59±13.9 years. Nine cases (45%) were spontaneous CSF rhinorrhea and 11 (55%) were traumatic; within the traumatic group, six cases (54%) were iatrogenic either following previous neurosurgery or functional endoscopic sinus surgery, while the remaining five cases were related to motor vehicle accidents. The mean body mass index for the spontaneous CSF leak was 32 Kg/m 2 , and 33 Kg/m 2 for the traumatic leaks, no statistically significant difference was noted. The cribriform plate was the most common site of leakage (65%). A multilayer surgical technique using facia lata graft with nasoseptal flap was the most common choice for reconstruction with a first-attempt success rate approximating 90%. A recurrence was observed in two patients only. No major complications were reported. The average length of stay was nine days. Conclusion The endoscopic endonasal repair of CSF leak is a safe and reliable procedure and is associated with high success rates and low risk of complications. Therefore, it should be preferred as a first-line treatment for CSF rhinorrhea., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright © 2023, Noori et al.)

Purpose: The traditional standard of care for Graves' ophthalmopathy (GO) is glucocorticoid therapy, which is associated with many long-term side effects. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the traditional therapy to novel monoclonal antibodies (e.g. rituximab [RTX], teprotumumab, and tocilizumab [TCZ])., Methods: We searched the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared different monoclonal antibodies (e.g. RTX, teprotumumab, and TCZ) with glucocorticoids or placebo in patients with GO. We evaluated the clinical activity score (CAS), proptosis, subjective diplopia using the Gorman score, quality of life (QoT), adverse events, change in lid fissure, NOSPECS score, and TSH receptor antibody (TRAb) levels. The odds ratio (OR) was used to represent dichotomous outcomes. The continuous outcomes were represented as standardized mean difference (SMD). Data were pooled using the inverse variance weighting method. Risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials., Results: Six ( n = 571) RCTs were deemed eligible. The different monoclonal antibodies were significantly more efficacious than glucocorticoid/placebo in terms of reduction in CAS (SMD = -1.44, 95% confidence interval (CI): -1.91--0.97, P < 0.00001, I 2 = 74%), change in proptosis (SMD = -4.96, 95% CI: -8.02--1.89, P = 0.002, I 2 = 99%), QoL (SMD = 2.64, 95% CI: 0.50-4.79, P = 0.02, I 2 = 97%), and Gorman score for diplopia (OR = 3.42, 95% CI: 1.62-7.22, P = 0.001, I 2 = 8%). However, monoclonal antibodies have shown higher rates of adverse events (OR = 2.91, 95% CI: 1.12-7.56, P = 0.03, I 2 = 62%). No significant difference was found with respect to lid fissure, NOSPECS, and TRAb levels., Conclusion: This meta-analysis demonstrated that monoclonal antibodies were associated with more favorable clinical outcomes than standard steroid therapy or placebo, especially with regard to CAS, change in proptosis, diplopia, and QoL, with teprotumumab being superior. In addition, only minor safety concerns were identified with monoclonal antibodies though less worrisome than using traditional steroids., Competing Interests: There are no conflicts of interest., (Copyright: © 2023 Saudi Journal of Ophthalmology.)