Evidence Hub

Surgical risk of CSF leakage following endoscopic transorbital approach for anterior and middle skull base pathologies: a systematic review and meta-analysis

S. Corvino, J. Berardinelli, G. Corazzelli, Roberto Altieri, I. Dallan, Francesco Corrivetti, M. de Notaris

Neurosurgical review, 2025

6 participants · 13 citations

Abstract

The endoscopic superior eyelid transorbital approach (SETOA) has demonstrated considerable versatility and effectiveness in managing various paramedian anterior and middle skull base pathologies. However, as with any relatively new technique, potential complications remain. We conducted an extensive literature search in MEDLINE and Embase in accordance with PRISMA guidelines including case reports and surgical series reporting cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak rate following SETOA for intracranial pathologies. Factors analyzed included lesion location (extra- or intra-axial), reconstruction techniques, and complication management. ROBINS-I tool was employed to assess the risk of bias. Twenty-five studies including 240 cases were eligible. The majority of lesions were intradural extra-axial (68.3%), while trigeminal schwannomas comprised all extradural cases (25.0%). Sixteen patients (6.6%) presented intradural intra-axial tumors. Osteodural reconstruction involved dural substitutes in one third of the cases (32.5%) either alone (14.2%) or combined with fat free graft (18.3%). CSF leak occurred in 6 patients (2.50%), mostly resolving via conservative management (66.6%). The risk of postoperative CSF leak was found to be significantly higher in patients undergoing resection for intra-axial tumors (OR 0.13, 95% CI: 0.04–0.49) compared to those undergoing resection for extra-axial (OR 0.01, 95% CI: 0.00–0.02; I2 = 0%; p < 0.001). Key limitations include the retrospective nature and…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 6 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free