For COVID-19 vaccine updates, please review our information guide. For patient eligibility and scheduling availability, please visit VaccineTogetherNY.org.

Endoscopic endonasal versus transcranial approach to tuberculum sellae and planum sphenoidale meningiomas in a similar cohort of patients.

TitleEndoscopic endonasal versus transcranial approach to tuberculum sellae and planum sphenoidale meningiomas in a similar cohort of patients.
Publication TypeJournal Article
Year of Publication2018
AuthorsBander ED, Singh H, Ogilvie CB, Cusic RC, Pisapia DJ, Tsiouris AJohn, Anand VK, Schwartz TH
JournalJ Neurosurg
Volume128
Issue1
Pagination40-48
Date Published2018 01
ISSN1933-0693
KeywordsAdult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Meningeal Neoplasms, Meningioma, Middle Aged, Neuroendoscopy, Postoperative Complications, Retrospective Studies, Seizures, Sella Turcica, Treatment Outcome, Tumor Burden, Vision Disorders
Abstract

OBJECTIVE Planum sphenoidale (PS) and tuberculum sellae (TS) meningiomas cause visual symptoms due to compression of the optic chiasm. The treatment of choice is surgical removal with the goal of improving vision and achieving complete tumor removal. Two options exist to remove these tumors: the transcranial approach (TCA) and the endonasal endoscopic approach (EEA). Significant controversy exists regarding which approach provides the best results and whether there is a subset of patients for whom an EEA may be more suitable. Comparisons using a similar cohort of patients, namely, those suitable for gross-total resection with EEA, are lacking from the literature. METHODS The authors reviewed all cases of PS and TS meningiomas that were surgically removed at Weill Cornell Medical College between 2000 and 2015 (TCA) and 2008 and 2015 (EEA). All cases were shown to a panel of 3 neurosurgeons to find only those tumors that could be removed equally well either through an EEA or TCA to standardize both groups. Volumetric measurements of preoperative and postoperative tumor size, FLAIR images, and apparent diffusion coefficient maps were assessed by 2 independent reviewers and compared to assess extent of resection and trauma to the surrounding brain. Visual outcome and complications were also compared. RESULTS Thirty-two patients were identified who underwent either EEA (n = 17) or TCA (n = 15). The preoperative tumor size was comparable (mean 5.58 ± 3.42 vs 5.04 ± 3.38 cm [± SD], p = 0.661). The average extent of resection achieved was not significantly different between the 2 groups (98.80% ± 3.32% vs 95.13% ± 11.69%, p = 0.206). Postoperatively, the TCA group demonstrated a significant increase in the FLAIR/edema signal compared with EEA patients (4.15 ± 7.10 vs -0.69 ± 2.73 cm, p = 0.014). In addition, the postoperative diffusion-weighted imaging signal of cytotoxic ischemic damage was significantly higher in the TCA group than in the EEA group (1.88 ± 1.96 vs 0.40 ± 0.55 cm, p =0.008). Overall, significantly more EEA patients experienced improved or stable visual outcomes compared with TCA patients (93% vs 56%, p = 0.049). Visual deterioration was greater after TCA than EEA (44% vs 0%, p = 0.012). While more patients experienced postoperative seizures after TCA than after EEA (27% vs 0%, p = 0.038), there was a trend toward more CSF leakage and anosmia after EEA than after TCA (11.8% vs 0%, p = 0.486 and 11.8% vs 0%, p = 0.118, respectively). CONCLUSIONS In this small single-institution study of similarly sized and located PS and TS meningiomas, EEA provided equivalent rates of resection with better visual results, less trauma to the brain, and fewer seizures. These preliminary results merit further investigation in a larger multiinstitutional study and may support EEA resection by experienced surgeons in a subset of carefully selected PS and TS meningiomas.

DOI10.3171/2016.9.JNS16823
Alternate JournalJ Neurosurg
PubMed ID28128693