• World Neurosurg · Feb 2012

    Review Meta Analysis Comparative Study

    Endoscopic endonasal compared with microscopic transsphenoidal and open transcranial resection of craniopharyngiomas.

    • Ricardo J Komotar, Robert M Starke, Daniel M S Raper, Vijay K Anand, and Theodore H Schwartz.
    • Department of Neurological Surgery, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
    • World Neurosurg. 2012 Feb 1;77(2):329-41.

    ObjectiveCraniopharyngiomas have traditionally represented a challenge for open transcranial or transsphenoidal microscopic neurosurgery because of their anatomical location and proximity to vital neurovascular structures. The extended endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal approach has been more recently developed as a potentially surgically aggressive, yet minimal access, alternative. To gain a more comprehensive assessment of the benefits and limitations of the various approaches to resection of craniopharyngiomas, we performed a systematic review of the available published reports after endoscope-assisted endonasal approaches and compared their results with transsphenoidal purely microscope-based or transcranial microscope-based techniques.MethodsWe performed a MEDLINE search of the modern literature (1995-2010) to identify open and endoscopic surgical series for pediatric and adult craniopharyngiomas. Comparisons were made for patient and tumor characteristics as well as extent of resection, morbidity, and visual outcome. Statistical analyses of categorical variables were undertaken by the use of χ(2) and Fisher exact tests with post-hoc Bonferroni analysis to compare endoscopic, microsurgical transsphenoidal, and transcranial approaches.ResultsEighty eight studies, involving 3470 patients, were included. The endoscopic cohort had a significantly greater rate of gross total resection (66.9% vs. 48.3%; P < 0.003) and improved visual outcome (56.2% vs. 33.1%; P < 0.003) compared with the open cohort. The transsphenoidal cohort had similar outcomes to the endoscopic group. The rate of cerebrospinal fluid leakage was greater in the endoscopic (18.4%) and transsphenoidal (9.0%) than in the transcranial group (2.6%; P < 0.003), but the transcranial group had a greater rate of seizure (8.5%), which did not occur in the endonasal or transsphenoidal groups (P < 0.003).ConclusionsThe endoscopic endonasal approach is a safe and effective alternative for the treatment of certain craniopharyngiomas. Larger lesions with more lateral extension may be more suitable for an open approach, and further follow-up is needed to assess the long-term efficacy of this minimal access approach.Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…