Comparison of Clinical Outcomes between Microscopic and Endoscopic Transsphenoidal Pituitary Tumor Resection

Author:

Krishnakumar Asha1,Ghadiyaram Ashwin1,Murthy Akshay K.2,Opalak Charles F.3,Schuman Theodore A.4,Broaddus William C.5

Affiliation:

1. School of Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, United States

2. Department of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, United States

3. Southeastern Neurosurgical and Spine Institute, Prisma Health, Greenville, South Carolina, United States

4. Department of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, United States

5. Department of Neurosurgery, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, United States

Abstract

Abstract Objectives In recent years, the transnasal endoscopic method for transsphenoidal pituitary tumor resection (eTSR), alongside the conventional sublabial microscopic transsphenoidal resection (mTSR) method, has gained popularity due to advancements in imaging and instrumentation. The current study sought to elucidate whether the trend toward eTSR was associated with changes in clinical outcomes at a single institution's multidisciplinary pituitary surgery program. Setting and Participants The Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) Brain Tumor Database was queried for patients who underwent either transnasal or sublabial pituitary tumor resection of pituitary tumors between 2009 and 2021. Design Clinical outcomes were compared between the two groups. Main Outcome Measures Surgical outcomes like estimated blood loss (EBL), cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak rates, hospital length of stay (LOS), and extent of resection were studied. Results A total of 93 patients (57 mTSR, 36 eTSR) underwent review, revealing that mTSR was associated with a higher average intraoperative blood loss (310.5 ± 48.6 mL) than eTSR (160.0 ± 30.7 mL; p = 0.012). eTSR demonstrated an elevated intraoperative CSF leak incidence (36.1 vs. 15.8%; p = 0.043), but no difference in postoperative CSF leak requiring intervention. Hospital LOS and extent of resection showed no significant differences between the approaches. Conclusion This single-institution, retrospective study suggests that, in experienced hands, both eTSR and mTSR approaches are effective with comparable risk profiles. The approach may be best determined by the surgical team's evaluation of the tumor's imaging features, paying attention to the patient's preoperative hematologic status due to the greater propensity for blood loss with the microscopic approach.

Publisher

Georg Thieme Verlag KG

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3