NCT07216157

NoSeal Trial: Comparing Sealants Versus No Sealant for Preventing CSF Leak After Endonasal Skull Base Surgery

The NoSeal Trial - Nasal Outcome Study Evaluating Artificial Leak-Sealing: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled, Single-Blinded, Single-Center Clinical Trial Comparing Fibrin Glue (Tisseel®) and a Two-Component Synthetic Polymer Sealant (PEI/PEG, Adherus®) Versus No Sealant for the Prevention of Cerebrospinal Fluid Leak and Promotion of Wound Healing Following Endonasal Skull Base Surgery, Designed in Accordance With the SPIRIT 2025 Guidelines

• Status: Recruiting
• Phase: N/A
• Study type: Interventional
• Enrollment: 225 (estimated)
• Sponsor: Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology · Academic / Other
• Sex: All
• Age: 18 Years
• Healthy volunteers: Not accepted

Summary

Postoperative cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak is a significant complication of endoscopic endonasal approaches (EEA) to the skull base. The use of tissue sealants such as fibrin glue (Tisseel) or synthetic agents (PEI/PEG) is widespread in surgical practice, however, recent high-quality evidence challenges their clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness. This study aims to investigate whether the routine use of sealants in patient with peri-operatively assessed low CSF leak risk, significantly improves outcomes over no sealant use, to guide more cost- effective, evidence-based closure strategies. To the best of our knowledge, the present study is the first randomized clinical trial to evaluate the necessity and comparative effectiveness of fibrin and synthetic sealants versus no sealant in preventing postoperative CSF leaks following endoscopic endonasal surgery in low-post operative CSF leak risk patients.

Detailed description

Introduction Postoperative cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak is a significant complication of endoscopic endonasal approaches (EEA) to the skull base. The use of tissue sealants such as fibrin glue (Tisseel) or synthetic agents (PEI/PEG) is widespread in surgical practice, however, recent high-quality evidence challenges their clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness. This study aims to investigate whether the routine use of sealants in patient with peri-operatively assessed low CSF leak risk, significantly improves outcomes over no sealant use, to guide more cost- effective, evidence-based closure strategies. To the best of our knowledge, the present study is the first randomized clinical trial to evaluate the necessity and comparative effectiveness of fibrin and synthetic sealants versus no sealant in preventing postoperative CSF leaks following endoscopic endonasal surgery in low-post operative CSF leak risk patients. Materials and Methods This is a prospective, randomized, controlled, single-center clinical trial conducted at the Maria Skłodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology in Warsaw, Poland. Adult patients scheduled for endoscopic endonasal surgery (EES) will first undergo screening based on medical history and detailed radiological evaluation. Those who meet all predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria will be enrolled and randomized preoperatively using a computer-generated allocation sequence into one of three treatment arms: (1) no sealant (standard multilayer closure), (2) fibrin glue application (Tisseel®), or (3) synthetic polyethylene glycol-based sealant (Adherus®). Following randomization, surgery will be performed in accordance with the assigned intervention. The primary endpoint is the incidence of postoperative cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak within 3 months. Secondary outcomes include endoscopic evaluation of mucosal healing at 6 weeks and 3 months, postoperative complication rates (e.g., meningitis, pneumocephalus), reoperation rate, patient-reported quality of life, and a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing sealant use to standard closure. The study is designed and will be reported in accordance with the SPIRIT 2025 (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) guidelines to ensure methodological transparency and reproducibility. Results Initial enrollment includes a target of 225 patients (75 per arm). Interim data analysis focuses on early healing parameters, safety profiles, and cost metrics. Hypothesis testing will determine if either sealant significantly reduces CSF leak rates compared to no sealant and whether the marginal benefit justifies routine use in all patients. Exploratory endpoints include biomaterial handling characteristics and surgeon-reported usability. Conclusion The NoSeal Trial addresses a critical gap in evidence regarding the necessity and comparative performance of sealants in skull base reconstruction. By evaluating both clinical outcomes and economic impact, the study seeks to optimize surgical protocols and improve the safety and efficiency of endonasal neurosurgical procedures.

Conditions

• CerebroSpinal Fluid (CSF) Leak

Interventions

Type	Name	Description
PROCEDURE	Standard multilayer closure without sealant	Patients will undergo standard skull base reconstruction using mucosal flap repositioning and absorbable hemostatics (e.g., Surgicel®, TachoSil®), without application of any fibrin or synthetic sealant. This serves as the control group for comparison with sealant-assisted closures.
DEVICE	Fibrin sealant application	Following standard multilayer closure, patients in this group will receive topical application of a fibrin-based biological sealant (Tisseel®). The intervention aims to assess its effectiveness in preventing postoperative cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak and promoting mucosal healing after endoscopic endonasal skull base surgery.
DEVICE	Synthetic polyethylene glycol-based sealant	After standard multilayer closure, a synthetic two-component sealant (Adherus®, composed of polyethylene glycol and polyethylenimine) will be applied to reinforce the reconstruction site. This group is used to evaluate the efficacy and safety of synthetic sealant in preventing CSF leaks and supporting wound healing.

Timeline

• Start date: 2025-08-15
• Primary completion: 2026-12-30
• Completion: 2027-03-15
• First posted: 2025-10-14
• Last updated: 2025-10-14

Locations

1 site across 1 country: Poland

Regulatory

• FDA-regulated device study