Volumetry in the Assessment of Pituitary Adenoma Resection: Endoscopy versus Microscopy

Abstract

Background Assessment of the extent of resection after surgical resection of pituitary adenomas is most commonly reported in terms of the presence or absence of residual tumor. A quantitative comparison of volumetric resection between endonasal endoscopy (EE) and microsurgery (MS) has rarely been done. Methods A retrospective analysis was performed on a consecutive series of 154 patients with pituitary adenomas treated by the same surgeon at a single institution. We employed volumetric analysis pre- and postoperatively on two cohorts of pituitary adenoma patients treated through MS (n = 37) versus EE approach (n = 117). Results Volumetric analysis revealed a higher incidence of complete resection (64.4 vs. 56.8%) and mean volume reduction in the EE cohort (92.7 vs. 88.4%), although not significant. Recurrence rates were significantly lower in the EE group (7.7% vs 24.3%, p = 0.015). Subgroup analysis identified that patients with preoperative tumor volumes >1 mL were less likely to recur through EE (7.8 vs. MS: 29.6%; p = 0.0063). A higher incidence of complete resection was also noted in patients with favorable Knosp grades (0–1) (EE: 87.8 vs. MS: 63.2%; p = 0.036). Postoperative complication rates were not significantly different between both techniques. Conclusion Both microscopy and endoscopy are well-tolerated, effective approaches in the treatment of pituitary adenomas. Our series demonstrated that EE may be superior to MS in preventing tumor recurrence and achieving a complete resection in certain subsets of patients. EE provides a slight advantage in tumor control outcomes that may justify the paradigm shift to pure endoscopy at our center.