Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2022 Dec;51(4):727-739.
doi: 10.1016/j.ecl.2022.04.005. Epub 2022 Sep 24.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Endoscopic Endonasal Skull Base Surgery

Affiliations
Review

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Endoscopic Endonasal Skull Base Surgery

Rabih Bou-Nassif et al. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am. 2022 Dec.

Abstract

The functional outcome, quality of life, and patient feedback related to a chosen treatment approach in skull base surgery have become a subject of interest and focused research in recent years. The current advances in endoscopic optical imaging technology and surgical precision have radically lowered the perioperative morbidity associated with skull base surgery. This has pushed toward a higher focus on patient-reported outcomes (PROs). It is now critical to ensure that the offered treatment plan and approach align with the patient's preferences and expectations, in addition to the surgeon's best clinical judgment and experience. PROs represent a view that reflects the patient's own thoughts and perspective on their condition and the management options, without input or interpretations from the surgeon. Having PRO data enables patients the opportunity to learn from the experiences and perspectives of other patients. This input empowers the patient to become an active participant in the decision-making process at different stages of their care. An in-depth PRO evaluation requires specific validated tools and scoring systems, namely the patient-reported outcomes measures (PROM) tools. In this review, we discuss the currently available skull-base-related PROs, the assessment tools used to capture them, and the future trends of this important topic that is in its infancy.

Keywords: Endoscopic endonasal skull base surgery (EESBS); Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs); Patient-reported outcomes (PROs); Pituitary surgery.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Moussazadeh N, Prabhu V, Bander ED, et al. Endoscopic endonasal versus open transcranial resection of craniopharyngiomas: a case-matched single-institution analysis. Neurosurgical focus. 2016;41(6). doi:10.3171/2016.9.FOCUS16299 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Abergel A, Cavel O, Margalit N, Fliss DM, Gil Z. Comparison of quality of life after transnasal endoscopic vs open skull base tumor resection. Archives of otolaryngology--head & neck surgery. 2012;138(2):142–147. doi:10.1001/ARCHOTO.2011.1146 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Miller JD, Taylor RJ, Ambrose EC, Laux JP, Ebert CS, Zanation AM. Complications of Open Approaches to the Skull Base in the Endoscopic Era. Journal of neurological surgery Part B, Skull base. 2017;78(1):11–17. doi:10.1055/S-0036-1583948 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Brotman JJ, Kotloff RM. Providing Outpatient Telehealth Services in the United States: Before and During Coronavirus Disease 2019. Chest. 2021;159(4):1548–1558. doi:10.1016/J.CHEST.2020.11.020 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Guyatt G, Walter S, Norman G. Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. Journal of chronic diseases. 1987;40(2):171–178. doi:10.1016/0021-9681(87)90069-5 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types