• Ricardo J Komotar, Robert M Starke, Daniel M S Raper, Vijay K Anand, and Theodore H Schwartz.
• Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Miami, Miami, Florida, USA.
• World Neurosurg. 2013 Jul 1;80(1-2):148-59.

ObjectiveEsthesioneuroblastomas represent a surgical challenge because of their anatomical location, the necessity of achieving negative margins, and the often-cosmetically disfiguring transfacial approaches needed. Recently, expanded endonasal endoscopic approaches have been developed, either alone or in combination with a craniotomy. We conducted a systematic review of case series and case reports to compare outcomes between these various surgical approaches.MethodsA MEDLINE search was conducted of the modern literature (1985-2010) to identify open and endoscopic surgical series. Tumor and patient characteristics, Kadish stage, extent of resection, and progression-free and overall survival were recorded and analyzed by approach. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to assess overall survival and progression-free survival.ResultsForty-seven studies comprising 453 patients were included. The endoscopic cohort had a greater proportion of Kadish Stage A tumors compared with the craniofacial group. Gross total resection was achieved in 98.1% of patients who underwent an endoscopic approach compared with 81.3% for the craniofacial and 100% for the cranionasal cohorts. Local recurrence occurred in 8.0% of patients in the endoscopic group compared with 22.1% in the craniofacial and 16.7% in the cranionasal cohorts.ConclusionIn well-selected cases, cranionasal and endonasal approaches can be safe and effective. An ongoing evaluation of the benefits and limitations are necessary to better define the ideal patient population and patient-specific risk factors for the use of these minimal access techniques.Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

44 keywords...

hide…