Assessment of Factors Associated With Internal Carotid Injury in Expanded Endoscopic Endonasal Skull Base Surgery | Minimally Invasive Surgery | JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Figure.  Fishbone Diagram Connecting All Possible Factors to the Outcome of Internal Carotid Artery (ICA) Injury
Fishbone Diagram Connecting All Possible Factors to the Outcome of Internal Carotid Artery (ICA) Injury
Table 1.  Patient Risk Factors for Internal Carotid Artery Injury
Patient Risk Factors for Internal Carotid Artery Injury
Table 2.  Recommendations for Cases at High Risk for Internal Carotid Artery Injury
Recommendations for Cases at High Risk for Internal Carotid Artery Injury
1.
Kassam  AB, Gardner  P, Snyderman  C, Mintz  A, Carrau  R.  Expanded endonasal approach: fully endoscopic, completely transnasal approach to the middle third of the clivus, petrous bone, middle cranial fossa, and infratemporal fossa.   Neurosurg Focus. 2005;19(1):E6. doi:10.3171/foc.2005.19.1.7 PubMedGoogle Scholar
2.
Cappabianca  P, Cavallo  LM, Esposito  F, De Divitiis  O, Messina  A, De Divitiis  E.  Extended endoscopic endonasal approach to the midline skull base: the evolving role of transsphenoidal surgery.   Adv Tech Stand Neurosurg. 2008;33:151-199. doi:10.1007/978-3-211-72283-1_4 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Nicolai  P, Battaglia  P, Bignami  M,  et al.  Endoscopic surgery for malignant tumors of the sinonasal tract and adjacent skull base: a 10-year experience.   Am J Rhinol. 2008;22(3):308-316. doi:10.2500/ajr.2008.22.3170 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Inamasu  J, Guiot  BH.  Iatrogenic carotid artery injury in neurosurgery.   Neurosurg Rev. 2005;28(4):239-247. doi:10.1007/s10143-005-0412-7 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Frank  G, Sciarretta  V, Calbucci  F, Farneti  G, Mazzatenta  D, Pasquini  E.  The endoscopic transnasal transsphenoidal approach for the treatment of cranial base chordomas and chondrosarcomas.   Neurosurgery. 2006;59(1 suppl 1):ONS50-ONS57.PubMedGoogle Scholar
6.
Gardner  PA, Kassam  AB, Snyderman  CH,  et al.  Outcomes following endoscopic, expanded endonasal resection of suprasellar craniopharyngiomas: a case series.   J Neurosurg. 2008;109(1):6-16. doi:10.3171/JNS/2008/109/7/0006 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Raymond  J, Hardy  J, Czepko  R, Roy  D.  Arterial injuries in transsphenoidal surgery for pituitary adenoma; the role of angiography and endovascular treatment.   AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1997;18(4):655-665.PubMedGoogle Scholar
8.
Karl  R, Karl  MC.  Adverse events: root causes and latent factors.   Surg Clin North Am. 2012;92(1):89-100. doi:10.1016/j.suc.2011.12.003 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Ciric  I, Ragin  A, Baumgartner  C, Pierce  D.  Complications of transsphenoidal surgery: results of a national survey, review of the literature, and personal experience.   Neurosurgery. 1997;40(2):225-236. doi:10.1097/00006123-199702000-00001 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Ammirati  M, Wei  L, Ciric  I.  Short-term outcome of endoscopic versus microscopic pituitary adenoma surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.   J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2013;84(8):843-849. doi:10.1136/jnnp-2012-303194 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Laws  ER  Jr.  Vascular complications of transsphenoidal surgery.   Pituitary. 1999;2(2):163-170. doi:10.1023/A:1009951917649 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Reason  J.  Managing the Risk of Organizational Accidents. Farnham, UK: Ashgate; 1997.
13.
AlQahtani  A, Castelnuovo  P, Nicolai  P, Prevedello  DM, Locatelli  D, Carrau  RL.  Injury of the internal carotid artery during endoscopic skull base surgery: prevention and management protocol.   Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2016;49(1):237-252. doi:10.1016/j.otc.2015.09.009 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Valentine  R, Wormald  PJ.  Carotid artery injury after endonasal surgery.   Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2011;44(5):1059-1079. doi:10.1016/j.otc.2011.06.009 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Koutourousiou  M, Gardner  PA, Tormenti  MJ,  et al.  Endoscopic endonasal approach for resection of cranial base chordomas: outcomes and learning curve.   Neurosurgery. 2012;71(3):614-624. doi:10.1227/NEU.0b013e31825ea3e0 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Smith  SJ, Eralil  G, Woon  K, Sama  A, Dow  G, Robertson  I.  Light at the end of the tunnel: the learning curve associated with endoscopic transsphenoidal skull base surgery.   Skull Base. 2010;20(2):69-74. doi:10.1055/s-0029-1238214 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Snyderman  CH, Gardner  PA.  Quality control approach to cerebrospinal fluid leaks.   Adv Otorhinolaryngol. 2013;74:130-137.PubMedGoogle Scholar
18.
Montague  ML, Kishore  A, McGarry  GW.  Audit-derived guidelines for training in endoscopic sinonasal surgery (ESS)--protecting patients during the learning curve.   Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci. 2003;28(5):411-416. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2273.2003.00734.x PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Syme-Grant  J, White  PS, McAleer  JP.  Measuring competence in endoscopic sinus surgery.   Surgeon. 2008;6(1):37-44. doi:10.1016/S1479-666X(08)80093-5 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Hosemann  W, Draf  C.  Danger points, complications and medico-legal aspects in endoscopic sinus surgery.   GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;12:Doc06.PubMedGoogle Scholar
21.
Hallbeck  MS, Lowndes  BR, Bingener  J,  et al.  The impact of intraoperative microbreaks with exercises on surgeons: a multi-center cohort study.   Appl Ergon. 2017;60:334-341. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2016.12.006 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Wong  SW, Smith  R, Crowe  P.  Optimizing the operating theatre environment.   ANZ J Surg. 2010;80(12):917-924. doi:10.1111/j.1445-2197.2010.05526.x PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Alleblas  CCJ, de Man  AM, van den Haak  L, Vierhout  ME, Jansen  FW, Nieboer  TE.  Prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders among surgeons performing minimally invasive surgery: a systematic review.   Ann Surg. 2017;266(6):905-920. doi:10.1097/SLA.0000000000002223 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Parker  RS, Parker  P.  The impact of sleep deprivation in military surgical teams: a systematic review.   J R Army Med Corps. 2017;163(3):158-163. doi:10.1136/jramc-2016-000640 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Daruwalla  J, Marlow  N, Field  J,  et al.  Effect of fatigue on laparoscopic skills: a comparative historical cohort study.   ANZ J Surg. 2014;84(3):137-142. doi:10.1111/ans.12069 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Dalgorf  DM, Sacks  R, Wormald  PJ,  et al.  Image-guided surgery influences perioperative morbidity from endoscopic sinus surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.   Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;149(1):17-29. doi:10.1177/0194599813488519 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Sunkaraneni  VS, Yeh  D, Qian  H, Javer  AR.  Computer or not? Use of image guidance during endoscopic sinus surgery for chronic rhinosinusitis at St Paul’s Hospital, Vancouver, and meta-analysis.   J Laryngol Otol. 2013;127(4):368-377. doi:10.1017/S0022215113000261 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Dusick  JR, Esposito  F, Malkasian  D, Kelly  DF.  Avoidance of carotid artery injuries in transsphenoidal surgery with the Doppler probe and micro-hook blades.   Neurosurgery. 2007;60(4)(suppl 2):322-328.PubMedGoogle Scholar
29.
Salami  SS, Elsamra  SE, Motato  H,  et al.  Performing in the surgical amphitheater of today: perception of urologists conducting live case demonstrations.   J Endourol. 2014;28(9):1121-1126. doi:10.1089/end.2014.0094 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Artibani  W, Ficarra  V, Challacombe  BJ,  et al.  EAU policy on live surgery events.   Eur Urol. 2014;66(1):87-97. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2014.01.028 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Leavitt  DA, Kavoussi  LR.  Live surgical demonstrations: an endangered species.   Urol Oncol. 2015;33(4):159-162. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2015.02.006 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Khan  SA, Chang  RT, Ahmed  K,  et al.  Live surgical education: a perspective from the surgeons who perform it.   BJU Int. 2014;114(1):151-158. doi:10.1111/bju.12283 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    Original Investigation
    February 27, 2020

    Assessment of Factors Associated With Internal Carotid Injury in Expanded Endoscopic Endonasal Skull Base Surgery

    Author Affiliations
    • 1Department of Otorhinolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery, King Fahad Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
    • 2Department of Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus
    • 3Department of Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
    • 4National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
    • 5Division of Otorhinolaryngology, Department of Biotechnology and Life Sciences, University of Insubria, Varese, Italy
    • 6Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Biotechnology and Life Sciences, University of Insubria, Varese, Italy
    • 7Centro de Otorrinolaringologia e Fonoaudiologia, Complexo Hospitalar Edmundo Vasconcelos, São Paulo, Brasil
    • 8Indiana University, Department of Neurosurgery and Goodman Campbell Brain and Spine, Indianapolis, Indiana
    • 9Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
    • 10Department of Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery, University of Miami, Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida
    • 11Department of Neurosurgery, University of Miami, Miami, Florida
    • 12ENT Department, Ospedale Bellaria, Bologna, Italy
    • 13Center of Pituitary and Endoscopic Skull Base Surgery, Istituto delle Scienze Neurologiche di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
    • 14Pacific Brain Tumor Center and Pituitary Disorders Program, John Wayne Cancer Institute at Providence Saint John's Health Center, Santa Monica, California
    • 15Medical School, University of Nicosia, Nicosia, Cyprus
    • 16Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Royal Pearl Hospital, Tiruchirapally, Tamil Nadu, India
    • 17Unit of Otorhinolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Sciences, and Public Health, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy
    • 18Department of Neurosurgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus
    JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2020;146(4):364-372. doi:10.1001/jamaoto.2019.4864
    Key Points

    Question  What are the factors associated with internal carotid artery injury in endoscopic endonasal skull base surgery?

    Findings  In this multicenter quality improvement study that analyzed 28 cases of internal carotid artery injury sustained during endoscopic endonasal skull base surgery, the incidence of injury was 0.4%. All cases were associated with 1 or more of the identified risk factors; however, patient-related factors were reported most frequently (in 96% of cases).

    Meaning  Results of this study suggest that internal carotid artery injury during endoscopic endonasal skull base surgery is rare and has multifactorial origins.

    Abstract

    Importance  Injury to the internal carotid artery (ICA) during endoscopic endonasal skull base surgery does not typically occur as an isolated circumstance but often is the result of multiple factors.

    Objective  To assess the factors associated with ICA injury in an effort to reduce its occurrence.

    Design, Setting, and Participants  This quality improvement study used a multicenter root cause analysis of ICA injuries sustained during endoscopic endonasal skull base surgery performed at 11 tertiary care centers across 4 continents (North America, South America, Europe, and Asia) from January 1, 1993, to December 31, 2018. A fishbone model was built to facilitate the root cause analysis. Patients who underwent an expanded endoscopic endonasal approach that carried a substantial potential risk of an ICA injury were included in the analysis. A questionnaire was completed by surgeons at the centers to assess relevant human, patient, process, technique, instrument, and environmental factors associated with the injury.

    Main Outcomes and Measures  Root cause analysis of demographic, human, patient, process, technique, instrument, and environmental factors as well as mortality and morbidity data.

    Results  Twenty-eight cases of ICA injury occurred during 7160 expanded endoscopic endonasal approach procedures (incidence of 0.4%). The mean age of the patients was 49 years, with a female to male predominance ratio of 1.8:1 (18 women to 10 men). Anatomical (23 [82%]), pathological (15 [54%]), and surgical resection (26 [93%]) factors were most frequently reported. The surgeon’s mental or physical well-being was reported as inadequate in 4 cases (14%). Suboptimal imaging was reported in 6 cases (21%). The surgeon’s experience level was not associated with ICA injury. The ICA injury was associated with use of powered or sharp instruments in 20 cases (71%), and use of new instruments or technology in 7 cases (25%). Two patients (7%) died in the operating room, and 3 (11%) were alive with neurological deficits. Overall, patient-related factors were the most frequently reported risk factors (in 27 of 28 cases [96%]). Factors associated with ICA injury catalyzed a list of preventive recommendations.

    Conclusions and Relevance  This study found that human factors were associated with intraoperative ICA injuries; however, they were usually accompanied by other deficiencies. These findings suggest that identifying risk factors is crucial for preventing such injuries. Preoperative planning and minimizing the potential for ICA injury also appear to be essential.

    Introduction

    The expanded endoscopic endonasal approach (EEA) was introduced to the armamentarium of skull base surgery during the 1990s. This procedure enables alternative ventral trajectories to select median and paramedian lesions of the anterior, middle, and posterior cranial fossae.1 It has enabled approaching deep-seated lesions while diminishing the risks and complications associated with traditional external approaches.2,3

    Nonetheless, risks to neurovascular structures remain. Furthermore, control of vascular injuries is more complex because of the EEA’s narrow corridor and need for specialized instruments. Injury to the internal carotid artery (ICA) during skull base surgery may lead to catastrophic morbidity and mortality. In traditional open skull base surgery, the incidence of ICA injury hovers between 3% and 8%.4 During routine endoscopic sinus operations, the event is extremely rare (<1%), appearing in the literature mostly as case reports. In contrast to sinonasal surgery for inflammatory disease, the EEA often implies the need for wide surgical exposure and, although still uncommon, is associated with a higher rate of injury.5,6

    Single-institution reports of intraoperative endoscopic endonasal ICA injury are sparse owing to their rarity, with the largest series to date including 14 injuries.7 However, as with other catastrophic events, ICA injury is likely underreported. Therefore, understanding its incidence and etiologic factors is limited by both the infrequency of the event and the limited available data in the literature.

    Prevention of ICA injury is the best strategy for avoiding any devastating complication. However, this strategy requires identification of all possible causes by robust, thoughtful, and objective analysis. Root cause analysis can assist in guiding a comprehensive, system-based approach to a particular event.8 Its goal is to understand what happened, why it occurred, and how to prevent it. Therefore, this study used root cause analysis to survey the many factors associated with an ICA injury during EEA.9-11

    Methods

    We performed a retrospective multi-institutional quality improvement study using root cause analysis of all EEA procedures associated with intraoperative ICA injuries from January 1, 1993, to December 31, 2018, at 11 tertiary care centers across 4 continents (North America, South America, Europe, and Asia). This study was approved by the institutional research ethics committee at each participating center. Consent was waived because of the retrospective nature of the study. All cases were deidentified for patient and institutional data.

    To determine the denominator to calculate the true ICA injury incidence, we included only those patients who underwent an EEA procedure that involved a substantial potential risk of an ICA injury (ie, lesions along the anatomical course of the ICA). Patients who underwent resections with a low potential for injury (eg, transfrontal, transcribriform, and transodontoid approaches) were excluded. Postoperative ICA lesions, those associated with microscopic or open approaches, and those with incomplete data were also excluded. The study, however, was not constructed to provide a nuanced incidence but to analyze the factors associated with the event.

    Root Cause Analysis

    To investigate the genesis of the ICA injuries, we conducted a root cause analysis aided by a fishbone diagram (Figure). Multiple factors (subcauses) were grouped under major categories to dissect the association of specific factors with the outcome. Factors were categorized as follows, according to their potential association with the injury (Box 1): (1) patient risks: anatomical factors, pathological condition characteristics, and previous treatments; (2) human errors: mistakes and oversights by surgeons or operating staff; (3) process deficiencies: preparation of the patient and planning of the surgical procedure with goals and expectations; (4) techniques: surgical technique and intraoperative proficiency; (5) instruments: specific tools, type and setup of instruments, and other surgical devices; and (6) environment and situation: operating room (OR) logistics and setup in relation to the ICA injury.

    Box Section Ref ID
    Box 1.

    Categories and Potential Multiple Factors in Internal Carotid Artery (ICA) Injury

    Patient Risks
    • Age

    • Sex

    • Diagnosis

    • Anatomical risks

    • Pathological risks

    • Surgical resection risks

    Human Errors
    • Surgeon’s experience

    • Imaging interpretation

    • Surgeon’s experience

    • Surgical team

    • Surgeon’s condition

    • Nurses

    Process Deficiencies
    • ICA injury protocol

    • ICA injury expectancy

    • Multidisciplinary team approach

    Techniques
    • Inadequate imaging

    • Use of surgical navigation devices

    • Intraoperative imaging

    • Bloody surgical field

    • Inadequate exposure

    Instruments
    • Sharp or blunt manual or powered instruments

    • Type of instrument

    • Improper device setup

    • Use of new or unfamiliar instruments or technology

    Environment or Situations
    • Operating room location

    • Intraoperative distractions

    • Operating room logistics

    A questionnaire with pertinent fields in a case report form was distributed to surgeons at the centers to assess these factors. To encourage transparent and candid accounts and to follow privacy and confidentiality protocols, we expurgated any identifiable data from patients, surgeons, and hospitals. Individual case results were not distributed; however, summaries and noncensored data were shared to enable us to reach consensus recommendations.

    Results

    The survey revealed a total of 28 ICA injuries that occurred in 7160 cases for an incidence (range) of 0.4% (0.001%-2.5%). The predominant target lesion was a sinonasal or skull base tumor, representing the main indication for a surgical procedure in all but 1 patient, who presented with invasive fungal sinusitis (Box 2). The mean age of the patients was 49 years, with a female to male ratio of 1.8:1 (18 women to 10 men). Characteristics of the site of ICA injury can be found in Box 2.

    Box Section Ref ID
    Box 2.

    Characterization of 28 Internal Carotid Artery (ICA) Injuries

    Pathological Condition
    • Pituitary adenoma (14 [50%])

    • Clival chordoma (4 [14%])

    • Sinonasal malignant neoplasm (3 [11%])

    • Juvenile angiofibroma, skull base fibromatosis, craniopharyngioma, meningioma, epidermoid cyst, unclassified malignant neoplasm (1 [4%])

    Location of ICA Injury
    • Parasellar ICA (17 [61%])

    • Paraclival ICA (7 [25%])

    • Parapharyngeal and paraclinoid segments (2 [7%] each)

    Site of ICA Injury
    • Left side (18 [64%])

    • Right side (10 [36%])

    Timing of ICA Injury
    • Approach (16 [57%])

    • Lesion resection (12 [43%])

    Type of Instrument
    • Sharp; manual or powered (20 [71%])

    • Blunt (8 [29%])

    Name of Instrument
    • Powered instrument (9 [32%])

      • Fine diamond burr drill (2 [7%])

      • Coarse diamond burr drill (5 [18%])

      • Cutting burr drill (1 [4%])

      • Microdebrider (1 [4%])

    • Sharp scissors (4 [14%])

    • Blakesley forceps (4 [14%])

    • Thermal injury (3 [11%])

      • Bipolar (2 [7%])

      • Monopolar (1 [4%])

    • Rongeur (3 [11%])

    • Blunt dissector (2 [7%])

    • Ball probe (2 [7%])

    • Ultrasonic bone aspirator (1 [4%])

    New Instrument or Technology
    • Drill (3 [11%])

    • Ultrasonic bone aspirator (1 [4%])

    • Rongeur (1 [4%])

    • Microdebrider (1 [4%])

    • 3-Dimensional endoscope (1 [4%])

    Anatomical or Disease-Related Factors

    Anatomy-related risk factors included morphological variations of the ICA that could predispose a patient to ICA injury. Most patients (23 of 28 [82%]) had 1 or more anatomy-related risks.

    Surgical risks included factors associated with the surgical decision and extent of resection. Most patients in this cohort (26 of 28 [93%]) had 1 or more surgical risk factors. A pathological risk factor for bleeding was found in 15 of 28 (54%) injured patients. Table 1 summarizes the subcauses of the patient-related factors. Overall, 27 of 28 ICA injuries (96%) were associated with 1 or more patient-related risk factor; the exception was 1 case that involved a seemingly straightforward pituitary microadenoma that sustained an ICA injury by a neurosurgical postgraduate year 5 trainee (inexperience was the only identifiable risk).

    Human Errors

    Inadequate preoperative assessment of imaging studies was reported in 3 cases (11%). In 2 patients (7%), the risk of injury was underestimated by both the surgeon and the radiologist, and an additional patient (4%) lacked a magnetic resonance imaging scan.

    Surgeons reported performing EEAs for a mean (range) period of 8 (1-21) years and a median (range) number of 80 (15-1500) cases before experiencing their first ICA injury. Five surgeons (2 faculty and 3 trainees) encountered an ICA injury in their first year of EEA experience.

    The ICA was injured by a senior surgeon (faculty level) in all but 3 patients, who were injured by trainees (1 neurosurgery postgraduate year 5 resident and 2 rhinology fellows). Two of the trainees worked in the same institution. Two of the 3 junior surgeons were under the direct supervision of an attending physician at the time of injury. In the remaining case, the attending physician was not in the OR during the incident.

    A 2-team approach, comprising an otolaryngologist (head and neck surgeon or rhinologist) and a neurosurgeon, was used in 22 of 28 patients (79%). Conversely, the injury occurred in a single-surgeon scenario in 6 of 28 patients (21%). Agreement between the 2 surgeons to perform the surgical step that led to the injury was found in 21 of 28 cases (75%); conversely, hesitancy and second thoughts were reported in 7 of 28 cases (25%).

    The surgeon’s fitness during the procedure was addressed by reporting physical and mental status, presence of any sickness, sleep deprivation, emotional stress, hunger, tiredness, just returning from travel or still feeling jet lag, first day after vacation, and rushing during the procedure. Four injuries (14%) were associated with the presence of 1 or more of these factors. These surgeons reported tiredness or hunger associated with prolonged surgical time. Surgeons documented competent scrub nurses in all cases except 1 (4%), in which the injury and its management had some association with the nurse’s limited experience.

    Process-Related Factors

    Seven of 11 institutions or teams (64%) reported not having a protocol for ICA injury in the OR before the first case event. Each team reported the preoperative risk of ICA injury on the basis of the aforementioned risk factors, estimating a low risk in 36%, medium risk in 25%, and high risk in 39% of cases. Most cases were discussed preoperatively in multidisciplinary meetings; however, 5 of the 28 cases with an ICA injury (18%) were not.

    Technology-Related Factors

    Six surgeons (21%) reported inadequate preoperative imaging either because of the inadequate quality of the images or the inability to obtain critical imaging. Image guidance systems were used in 15 cases (54%). Similarly, an acoustic Doppler was available but was not used routinely, even for high-risk cases (54% of the cases). None of the users of image guidance systems reported that the injury was the result of incorrect information or high margin of error. In 7 cases (25%), the surgeons reported that the use of intraoperative imaging (computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging) would have helped prevent the ICA injury.

    Surgeons related that ICA injuries were associated with a narrow corridor and inadequate exposure in 3 patients (11%). The surgical field was described as bloody just before the injury in 4 cases (14%) and mostly (3 of 4 cases) during the approach and not the resection.

    Instrument- or Technology-Related Factors

    Most ICA injuries (20 [71%]) were associated with the use of powered or sharp instruments (Box 2), with a high-powered drill reported in 8 of 20 events (40%). In 7 cases (25%), the injury occurred during the use of new or prototype instruments or technology.

    Environmental or Situational Factors

    Surgical orientation and situational control of the OR environment are critical surgical factors, especially in complex procedures. Surgeons reported that all but 3 ICA injuries (89%) occurred while operating in their usual room. In 3 exceptions (11%), the surgeon was operating in a different country and/or a new OR. However, the ORs were reported as spacious and adequate; in all cases, no distractions were present, such as chatter, music, pagers, or anything different from the usual setting, except in 1 case (4%). In this case, the OR staff was distracted by observers, and the surgeon reported being disturbed by the chatter.

    Outcomes

    Surgeons used various methods to control the bleeding. Packing was reported in only 10 cases (36%), use of a muscle patch in 15 cases (54%), and use of a transcervical carotid ligation in 3 cases (11%). Use of a muscle patch was reported as early as 2002.

    Two patients (7%) died in the OR, and 1 (4%) died of a heart attack within 24 hours of the ICA injury. All surviving patients underwent postoperative angiography. Angiography was followed by embolization in 14 cases (50%), endovascular stenting in 6 cases (21%), and no further intervention in 8 cases (29%).

    Twenty-two patients (78%) survived without neurological deficits, 3 (11%) were alive with neurological deficits, and 3 (11%) died. The mean (range) follow-up time for the cohort was 6.5 (2-20) years.

    Discussion

    A fishbone diagram helps in identifying factors, graphically connecting them to an outcome. Major categories in the diagram are suggested by analysis and brainstorming according to the nature of the event. Therefore, each major category in the diagram represents a source of problems that may contribute to the event. Multiple factors (subcauses) are grouped under major categories to enable the dissection and analysis of the association of each specific factor to the outcome. This method is widely used in the investigation of unexpected or undesirable events in many industries, including aviation, ground transportation, manufacturing, marketing, and health care.

    A study of aviation maintenance concluded that 90% of quality lapses are blameless.12 Appropriate error analysis requires identification of not only human causes but also systems causes. Root cause analysis is a method of comprehensively assessing all possible factors associated with the event. Afterward, an action plan can be implemented to prevent the reoccurrence of the event. The present study identified 1 or more patient-related risk factors in 96% of ICA injuries. Other studies have described the risk factors of ICA injury.13,14 Identification of such factors can help to improve preparation, maximizing precautions and activating preventive and management measures. When the case is considered high risk, the surgeon must minimize all listed factors.

    Progressive learning (ie, the learning curve) has a pronounced association with major complications and outcomes.15 In certain events, such as cerebrospinal fluid leaks, the learning curve has been quantified. Smith et al16 and Snyderman and Gardner17 described the learning curve and a break point in the number of cases. However, this type of analysis for ICA injury is difficult because of its paucity. The present study did not confirm an association between the surgeon’s years of experience or number of performed cases and ICA injury. However, an association may be possible, as 5 ICA injuries occurred during the surgeon’s first year of EEA experience. Three surgeons were residents or fellows in training, highlighting the importance of structured training with supervision, progressively matching the trainee skills with appropriate challenges and thus enabling learning without compromising safety.18-20 High-risk surgical procedures and critical steps should be performed by the most experienced surgeon.

    In many centers, EEA procedures are performed by a multispecialty team (generally an otolaryngologist or head and neck surgeon and a neurosurgeon). Intraoperative communication, especially regarding surgical steps, is essential. In this study, the importance of clear and effective communication was illustrated by the finding that in 21% of the cases, hesitancy or disagreement occurred between surgeons specifically regarding the surgical step that caused the injury.

    The EEA may be a long and exhausting procedure that requires all involved, especially the surgeons, to be physically and mentally fit. In 14% of events, surgeons reported physical distress from fatigue, hunger, operating after long travel or with jet lag, or having scheduled multiple cases. Fatigue, sleep deprivation, and hunger affect psychomotor performance and thus have implications for patient safety and operational alertness.21,22 Overall proficiency is reduced in fatigued surgeons, potentially leading to inadvertent complications.23-25 Whenever possible, surgeons should avoid high-risk cases when experiencing fatigue and/or physical or mental malady, on the first day after a long vacation or with jet lag, or when feeling rushed.

    In this study, 64% of the centers had no ICA injury protocol in place before the first incidence. Implementing an institution-specific protocol for ICA injury enhances prevention and management of the event.13,14 Although seemingly unnecessary for straightforward cases, a standardized multidisciplinary team-based approach allows the accumulation of joint experience, which augments the precision of the surgical approach and extent.

    Intraoperative use of a surgical navigational device was reported in 54% of cases. Theoretically, an image guidance system can aid in identifying intraoperative anatomical risks and reducing adverse outcomes.26 However, a meta-analysis of the literature did not demonstrate a statistically significant effect, only showing a nonsignificant reduction in revision operations.27 Nevertheless, a carefully calibrated image guidance system is advantageous for confirming landmarks and the position of ICA bony canals. During the resection, the vessels may be displaced from their preoperative position. Debulking of tumor and collapse of adjacent soft tissues change the anatomy, nullifying the accuracy of the navigation system. The present study revealed that, in many instances, an acoustic Doppler was available but was not used routinely even for high-risk cases (54% of the cases). Using this device may have prevented an ICA injury.28 Surgeons should question and confirm the accuracy of a surgical navigation device or acoustic Doppler sonography, anticipate errors, and recall anatomical knowledge and pattern recognition. Although these tools may have advantages, they can also be misleading or inaccurate and become a source of blunder.

    In this study, 71% of ICA injuries occurred with the use of sharp instruments. A high-powered drill was in use during 40% of the events. Surgeons should be aware that large-diameter coarse diamond burrs (4.5 mm) may have large diamond fragments (spikes) that can reach far from the core of the burr. As the burr spins, its round core is highly visible, but the spikes become transparent or ghostlike; thus, a surgeon may misjudge the depth of penetration, increasing the potential to injure the ICA wall when drilling its bony canal.13

    In 25% of cases, the ICA was injured during the use of new instruments or technology. Disorientation, inadequate setup, or unfamiliarity may potentially lead to errors. Trying new surgical devices in the OR is a common practice; however, extra caution is necessary when using unfamiliar instruments.

    The OR is a complex environment that presents many potential risk factors that can interfere with surgical procedures and predispose to errors. In this study, 11% of ICA injuries occurred when the surgeon was operating in a different theater and/or country. This finding raises the issue of operating in a new environment and its association with the surgeon’s performance.29 Operating in new environments for educational or business purposes involves a unique set of circumstances with additional challenges and pressure. Significant factors include lack of appropriate equipment, having an audience, jet lag, language barriers, and having a different operating team.30,31 Khan et al32 conducted an anonymous survey of 106 surgeons who performed live surgical broadcasts. The results showed that 19% of the surgeons reported a significant increase in stress levels or anxiety when they performed procedures away from home, and 24% reported the surgical quality as slightly worse and 3% as significantly worse compared with the performance in their home institution. Therefore, from our findings, we suggest that when a surgeon operates in a different environment, maximum precautions should be directed toward optimizing the operating environment.

    Recommendations

    Injury to the ICA is the most catastrophic surgical complication of EEA and may lead to permanent disabilities or death. This study attempted to identify the root factors associated with this injury for a better understanding of the event. Each clinical scenario should be appraised individually during the preoperative period to stratify cases according to the degree of risk. Once a case is labeled as high risk, a cascade of preventive measures should be applied to avoid or minimize the risk of ICA injury. Table 2 summarizes our recommendations on the basis of the root cause analysis; the expanded recommendations can be found in the eTable in the Supplement.

    Limitations

    This study has some limitations. Although the fishbone diagram helped with identifying and analyzing the causes and subcauses of ICA injuries during EEA, it relied on brainstorming and, therefore, was based on the authors’ subjective assumptions of the potential factors. Although this process allows for broad thinking, it is often based on opinions rather than facts. Another limitation was the inability to measure the magnitude of each factor and its association with the ICA injury. Given the study design, cause-effect analysis was not possible. To yield meaningful statistical significance, we should have analyzed all EEA procedures (n = 7160) in relation to ICA injury, which was beyond the scope of this study. In addition, many factors presented limitations owing to selection and recall biases. The cases occurred from 1993 to 2018; thus, memories of the event and the surrounding circumstances may be inaccurate, and although all identifiers were removed, reluctance to fully reveal all of the details of the event may persist. Furthermore, there was selection bias, as surveys were limited to skull base surgical teams at tertiary care centers across the world and could not account for factors outside of large centers. Therefore, the results may not be generalizable to all skull base teams. Outcomes may depend on resources and other unique factors pertaining to individual teams, and there may be additional factors not assessed by the questionnaire we distributed. Nevertheless, we believe the study identified general themes and concepts, identifying areas for improvement to prevent ICA injuries.

    Conclusions

    This study found that rare ICA injuries in EEA skull base surgery, which can have catastrophic complications, are predominantly associated with more than 1 risk factor. We believe that understanding the potential risk factors in patients who require EEA is an utmost priority. We also believe preoperative planning and minimizing the potential for ICA injury are essential in preventing a catastrophic scenario.

    Back to top
    Article Information

    Accepted for Publication: January 7, 2020.

    Published Online: February 27, 2020. doi:10.1001/jamaoto.2019.4864

    Correction: This article was corrected on October 8, 2020, to fix the affiliation for author Christos Georgalas, which was incorrectly published as the Department of Otorhinolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery, Hygeia Hospital, Athens, Greece; the correct affiliation is Medical School, University of Nicosia, Nicosia, Cyprus.

    Corresponding Author: Ricardo L. Carrau, MD, MBA, Department of Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, 320 W 10th Ave, Starling-Loving Hall, B221, Columbus, OH 43210 (ricardo.carrau@osumc.edu).

    Author Contributions: Drs AlQahtani and London had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Drs AlQahtani and London contributed equally to this work.

    Concept and design: AlQahtani, Castelnuovo, Locatelli, Stamm, Elbosraty, Casiano, Mazzatenta, Kelly, Prevedello, Carrau.

    Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: AlQahtani, London, Locatelli, Stamm, Cohen-Gadol, Casiano, Morcos, Pasquini, Frank, Barkhoudarian, Griffiths, Kelly, Georgalas, Janakiram, Nicolai, Carrau.

    Drafting of the manuscript: AlQahtani, London, Locatelli, Stamm, Elbosraty, Casiano, Janakiram, Carrau.

    Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: AlQahtani, London, Castelnuovo, Stamm, Cohen-Gadol, Casiano, Morcos, Pasquini, Frank, Mazzatenta, Barkhoudarian, Griffiths, Kelly, Georgalas, Janakiram, Nicolai, Prevedello, Carrau.

    Statistical analysis: AlQahtani.

    Obtained funding: Stamm.

    Administrative, technical, or material support: AlQahtani, Stamm, Cohen-Gadol, Elbosraty, Casiano, Morcos, Barkhoudarian, Janakiram, Prevedello, Carrau.

    Supervision: AlQahtani, Castelnuovo, Locatelli, Stamm, Casiano, Morcos, Pasquini, Frank, Mazzatenta, Griffiths, Kelly, Georgalas, Nicolai, Prevedello, Carrau.

    Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Casiano reported receiving ad hoc consulting fees from Medtronic, Olympus ENT, and MeilMed Inc outside the submitted work. Dr Barkhoudarian reported receiving personal fees from Vascular Technology Inc outside the submitted work. Dr Kelly reported receiving ad hoc consulting fees from Mizuho Inc outside the submitted work. Dr Prevedello reported being a consultant for Stryker, Medtronic, and Integra and receiving royalties from Mizuho and KLS-Martin. No other disclosures were reported.

    References
    1.
    Kassam  AB, Gardner  P, Snyderman  C, Mintz  A, Carrau  R.  Expanded endonasal approach: fully endoscopic, completely transnasal approach to the middle third of the clivus, petrous bone, middle cranial fossa, and infratemporal fossa.   Neurosurg Focus. 2005;19(1):E6. doi:10.3171/foc.2005.19.1.7 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    2.
    Cappabianca  P, Cavallo  LM, Esposito  F, De Divitiis  O, Messina  A, De Divitiis  E.  Extended endoscopic endonasal approach to the midline skull base: the evolving role of transsphenoidal surgery.   Adv Tech Stand Neurosurg. 2008;33:151-199. doi:10.1007/978-3-211-72283-1_4 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    3.
    Nicolai  P, Battaglia  P, Bignami  M,  et al.  Endoscopic surgery for malignant tumors of the sinonasal tract and adjacent skull base: a 10-year experience.   Am J Rhinol. 2008;22(3):308-316. doi:10.2500/ajr.2008.22.3170 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    4.
    Inamasu  J, Guiot  BH.  Iatrogenic carotid artery injury in neurosurgery.   Neurosurg Rev. 2005;28(4):239-247. doi:10.1007/s10143-005-0412-7 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    5.
    Frank  G, Sciarretta  V, Calbucci  F, Farneti  G, Mazzatenta  D, Pasquini  E.  The endoscopic transnasal transsphenoidal approach for the treatment of cranial base chordomas and chondrosarcomas.   Neurosurgery. 2006;59(1 suppl 1):ONS50-ONS57.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    6.
    Gardner  PA, Kassam  AB, Snyderman  CH,  et al.  Outcomes following endoscopic, expanded endonasal resection of suprasellar craniopharyngiomas: a case series.   J Neurosurg. 2008;109(1):6-16. doi:10.3171/JNS/2008/109/7/0006 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    7.
    Raymond  J, Hardy  J, Czepko  R, Roy  D.  Arterial injuries in transsphenoidal surgery for pituitary adenoma; the role of angiography and endovascular treatment.   AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1997;18(4):655-665.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    8.
    Karl  R, Karl  MC.  Adverse events: root causes and latent factors.   Surg Clin North Am. 2012;92(1):89-100. doi:10.1016/j.suc.2011.12.003 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    9.
    Ciric  I, Ragin  A, Baumgartner  C, Pierce  D.  Complications of transsphenoidal surgery: results of a national survey, review of the literature, and personal experience.   Neurosurgery. 1997;40(2):225-236. doi:10.1097/00006123-199702000-00001 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    10.
    Ammirati  M, Wei  L, Ciric  I.  Short-term outcome of endoscopic versus microscopic pituitary adenoma surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.   J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2013;84(8):843-849. doi:10.1136/jnnp-2012-303194 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    11.
    Laws  ER  Jr.  Vascular complications of transsphenoidal surgery.   Pituitary. 1999;2(2):163-170. doi:10.1023/A:1009951917649 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    12.
    Reason  J.  Managing the Risk of Organizational Accidents. Farnham, UK: Ashgate; 1997.
    13.
    AlQahtani  A, Castelnuovo  P, Nicolai  P, Prevedello  DM, Locatelli  D, Carrau  RL.  Injury of the internal carotid artery during endoscopic skull base surgery: prevention and management protocol.   Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2016;49(1):237-252. doi:10.1016/j.otc.2015.09.009 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    14.
    Valentine  R, Wormald  PJ.  Carotid artery injury after endonasal surgery.   Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2011;44(5):1059-1079. doi:10.1016/j.otc.2011.06.009 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    15.
    Koutourousiou  M, Gardner  PA, Tormenti  MJ,  et al.  Endoscopic endonasal approach for resection of cranial base chordomas: outcomes and learning curve.   Neurosurgery. 2012;71(3):614-624. doi:10.1227/NEU.0b013e31825ea3e0 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    16.
    Smith  SJ, Eralil  G, Woon  K, Sama  A, Dow  G, Robertson  I.  Light at the end of the tunnel: the learning curve associated with endoscopic transsphenoidal skull base surgery.   Skull Base. 2010;20(2):69-74. doi:10.1055/s-0029-1238214 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    17.
    Snyderman  CH, Gardner  PA.  Quality control approach to cerebrospinal fluid leaks.   Adv Otorhinolaryngol. 2013;74:130-137.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    18.
    Montague  ML, Kishore  A, McGarry  GW.  Audit-derived guidelines for training in endoscopic sinonasal surgery (ESS)--protecting patients during the learning curve.   Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci. 2003;28(5):411-416. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2273.2003.00734.x PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    19.
    Syme-Grant  J, White  PS, McAleer  JP.  Measuring competence in endoscopic sinus surgery.   Surgeon. 2008;6(1):37-44. doi:10.1016/S1479-666X(08)80093-5 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    20.
    Hosemann  W, Draf  C.  Danger points, complications and medico-legal aspects in endoscopic sinus surgery.   GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;12:Doc06.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    21.
    Hallbeck  MS, Lowndes  BR, Bingener  J,  et al.  The impact of intraoperative microbreaks with exercises on surgeons: a multi-center cohort study.   Appl Ergon. 2017;60:334-341. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2016.12.006 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    22.
    Wong  SW, Smith  R, Crowe  P.  Optimizing the operating theatre environment.   ANZ J Surg. 2010;80(12):917-924. doi:10.1111/j.1445-2197.2010.05526.x PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    23.
    Alleblas  CCJ, de Man  AM, van den Haak  L, Vierhout  ME, Jansen  FW, Nieboer  TE.  Prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders among surgeons performing minimally invasive surgery: a systematic review.   Ann Surg. 2017;266(6):905-920. doi:10.1097/SLA.0000000000002223 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    24.
    Parker  RS, Parker  P.  The impact of sleep deprivation in military surgical teams: a systematic review.   J R Army Med Corps. 2017;163(3):158-163. doi:10.1136/jramc-2016-000640 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    25.
    Daruwalla  J, Marlow  N, Field  J,  et al.  Effect of fatigue on laparoscopic skills: a comparative historical cohort study.   ANZ J Surg. 2014;84(3):137-142. doi:10.1111/ans.12069 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    26.
    Dalgorf  DM, Sacks  R, Wormald  PJ,  et al.  Image-guided surgery influences perioperative morbidity from endoscopic sinus surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.   Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;149(1):17-29. doi:10.1177/0194599813488519 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    27.
    Sunkaraneni  VS, Yeh  D, Qian  H, Javer  AR.  Computer or not? Use of image guidance during endoscopic sinus surgery for chronic rhinosinusitis at St Paul’s Hospital, Vancouver, and meta-analysis.   J Laryngol Otol. 2013;127(4):368-377. doi:10.1017/S0022215113000261 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    28.
    Dusick  JR, Esposito  F, Malkasian  D, Kelly  DF.  Avoidance of carotid artery injuries in transsphenoidal surgery with the Doppler probe and micro-hook blades.   Neurosurgery. 2007;60(4)(suppl 2):322-328.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    29.
    Salami  SS, Elsamra  SE, Motato  H,  et al.  Performing in the surgical amphitheater of today: perception of urologists conducting live case demonstrations.   J Endourol. 2014;28(9):1121-1126. doi:10.1089/end.2014.0094 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    30.
    Artibani  W, Ficarra  V, Challacombe  BJ,  et al.  EAU policy on live surgery events.   Eur Urol. 2014;66(1):87-97. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2014.01.028 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    31.
    Leavitt  DA, Kavoussi  LR.  Live surgical demonstrations: an endangered species.   Urol Oncol. 2015;33(4):159-162. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2015.02.006 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    32.
    Khan  SA, Chang  RT, Ahmed  K,  et al.  Live surgical education: a perspective from the surgeons who perform it.   BJU Int. 2014;114(1):151-158. doi:10.1111/bju.12283 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    ×