• Users Online: 50
  • Print this page
  • Email this page


 
 
Table of Contents
EDITORIAL
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 2  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 89-96

Management of suprasellar tumors in the era of endoscopic surgery: Presidential Oration 2019


Head, Department of Neurosurgery, Global Hospital, Parel, Mumbai, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Date of Web Publication10-Jan-2020

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Suresh K Sankhla
A-503, Chaitanya Towers, Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai - 400 012, Maharashtra
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/IJNO.IJNO_18_19

Rights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Sankhla SK. Management of suprasellar tumors in the era of endoscopic surgery: Presidential Oration 2019. Int J Neurooncol 2019;2:89-96

How to cite this URL:
Sankhla SK. Management of suprasellar tumors in the era of endoscopic surgery: Presidential Oration 2019. Int J Neurooncol [serial online] 2019 [cited 2020 Apr 5];2:89-96. Available from: http://www.Internationaljneurooncology.com/text.asp?2019/2/2/89/275535



Suprasellar tumors continue to pose formidable challenges in the clinical management because of their unique location and proximity to the critical neurovascular structures, such as the optic nerves and chiasm, internal carotid arteries and their branches, pituitary gland and infundibulum, hypothalamus and anterior third ventricle, oculomotor nerve and midbrain, and basilar artery and its branches. A diverse group of extradural and intradural lesions may occur in this region [Table 1], requiring different management planning and surgical strategies. Surgical resection remains the main therapeutic option as it provides immediate decompression of the compressed neurovascular structures, helps establish histopathological diagnosis, relieves raised intracranial pressure by restoring normal cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) pathways, and allows for a possible complete cure.
Table 1: Common suprasellar lesions

Click here to view


Surgical removal of suprasellar tumor, however, is technically difficult and demands an optimal approach that provides the shortest route, adequate access, proper visualization, and multidirectional views, with no brain retraction or traction/injury to the vital neurovascular structures. Historically, the surgical routes to approach suprasellar tumors varied between transcranial and transnasal corridors. The transcranial approach is the oldest and a well-known treatment option since the time brain surgery itself was established in the early part of the last century. The transnasal skull base approach was brought into the spotlight of modern medical practice with the contributions of Harvey Cushing and Oskar Hirsch in the early 1900s.[1],[2] Cushing, however, abandoned the transsphenoidal surgery completely in 1929 due to poor visibility in the operative field and high surgical mortality. With simultaneous developments in neurosurgical techniques and technologies, the transcranial microsurgical approaches gained more popularity in the mid-1900s for sellar and parasellar tumor surgery, replacing the transnasal approaches completely for a long time.

Since the introduction of operative microscopy and intraoperative fluoroscopy by Guiot et al.[3] and Hardy[4] in the 1960s, microsurgery via a transnasal transsphenoidal route became the gold standard for pituitary surgery, representing the technique of choice for about 99% of pituitary adenomas.[5],[6],[7] However, with the development of high-definition cameras and refined telescopes, sophisticated light sources, and cables, the endoscopic skull base surgery returned as a simple, safe, and minimally invasive technique, first as an adjunct to microscope in 1970s and then as a pure endoscopic technique in 1990s.[8],[9],[10] Recent progress in the technology such as intraoperative navigation, and techniques like expanded/extended transsphenoidal exposures,[11],[12],[13],[14],[15] has not only improved surgical efficiency but has also widened the scope and indications of the endoscopic endonasal surgery further.

The advantages of endoscope in the surgery at suprasellar region are several including, improved visualization of blind spots via panoramic and angled views and the ability to achieve close-up magnification. The wide visualization of surrounding anatomical landmarks helps to orient surgeons to the location of critical structures while avoiding irradiation exposure from intraoperative fluoroscopy. The two-dimensional (2D) images provided by the static endoscope and the consequent loss of depth perception, in contrast to the 3D images provided by microscopy, could be overcome by the dynamic movement of endoscopic vision. These features have driven changes in surgical approach trends, and favorable results have been published over the last 2 decades. The endonasal endoscopic surgery is also cosmetically accepted well as there is no visible scar and is appealing to the patients because it is perceived as being less invasive than the conventional transcranial surgery.[16] Moreover, the morbidities attributed to transcranial resection such as hematomas, seizures, and injuries to surrounding neurological structures are lower in patients treated with a transnasal endoscopic approach.


  Pituitary Adenoma Top


Nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas comprise the gonadotrophic (follicle-stimulating hormone, luteinizing hormone (LH), and alpha-subunit immunostaining), immunonegative (no immunostaining), and silent adenomas (prolactin, thyroid-stimulating hormone, adrenocorticotropic hormone, and GH-immunostaining without clinical symptoms). These tumors, for which there is no efficient medical therapy, should be removed via radical surgery. Better illumination and clear view of the sellar–suprasellar region provided by the modern endoscopy permits differentiation between the adenoma and the normal pituitary gland, and between the diaphragma sellae and the suprasellar arachnoid membrane, thus allowing complete resection of the adenoma with preservation of the normal pituitary gland and a lower incidence of complications like CSF leak.[13],[17] The tumor control rates in the published studies appear far superior with endoscopic surgery (56%–93%) when compared with those with microscopic surgery (35%–74%).[18],[19],[20],[21],[22],[23] [Table 2].
Table 2: Literature review comparing surgical outcome of pituitary adenoma (endoscopy versus microscopy)

Click here to view


Endoscopy is especially advantageous when control over the lateral extensions of the pituitary adenomas is required. The use of angled endoscopes widens exploration of the surgical field laterally and improves safe and efficient tumor removal from the cavernous sinus region. Knosp Grade 0–1 tumors are essentially intrasellar tumors and are amenable to >90% removal in both techniques.[24],[25] However, in cases of Grade 2 and 3 tumors, results obtained with endoscopy (gross-total resection [GTR] 88% and 67.9%, respectively) and microscopy (GTR 47.8% and 16.7%, respectively) are interesting and clearly demonstrate the additional advantage of the endoscopic surgery in achieving increased lateral exposure and a greater degree of adenoma removal in comparison to the microscopic surgery.[24]

Endoscopy also appears to improve immediate clinical outcome with fewer postoperative complications. With regard to the ophthalmic outcome, the endoscopic surgery has few added benefits over the transcranial surgery. Since it provides adequate exposure to allow aggressive tumor resection from the lateral extension, it offers a great opportunity for sufficient decompression of the optic apparatus and oculomotor nerve. More importantly, the endoscopic vision offers greater chances to preserve vascular supply of the optic chiasm and nerves through branches from the hypophyseal arteries [Figure 1] and [Figure 2]. These findings are in accordance with reports of the visual outcome in the literature. Frank et al.[20] reported 94.7% normalization or improvement in vision, 3.8% stabilization, and 1.2% worsening. Tabaee et al.[26] showed 92% complete resolution in visual symptoms with no worsening, and Dehdashti et al.[19],[27] reported 91% normalization or improvement and 9% stabilization of the visual functions.
Figure 1: Endoscopic photograph of the sellar–suprasellar region after complete removal of the pituitary macroadenoma, showing small perforating branches arising from the right inferior hypophyseal and supraclinoidal segment of the right ICA, supplying the inferior aspect of the optic chiasm and nerves, and pituitary gland and infundibulum

Click here to view
Figure 2: Intraoperative view of suprasellar region from endonasal approach, showing under surface of the optic nerves and chiasm, bilateral ICAs, and pituitary gland and stalk after pituitary tumor removal. Note small perforating arteries supplying dorsal part of the chiasm from above and ventral part from below

Click here to view


The ability to introduce tip of the scope into the sellar cavity during surgery is a unique feature of the endonasal endoscopic surgery. It improves identification of the compressed/displaced pituitary gland and stalk, and preservation of its blood supply, which is essential to maintain normal pituitary function.[13] Comparing the postoperative endocrinological outcome, Messerer et al.[24] demonstrated normalization of endocrinological status with endoscopic surgery in 86.5% and 50% of patients with preoperative eupituitarism and partial anterior pituitary insufficiency (PAPI), respectively, as opposed to 71% and 15% with microsurgery. The best rates of normalization or improvement in PAPI with microsurgery have been described in the literature as 49.7%,[27] 35%,[28] and 27%.[29]

CSF leaks seem to be the most common and disturbing complication of transsphenoidal pituitary surgery, observed in 12.1% and 8.5% patients in endoscopic and microsurgery, respectively.[24] It is now clearly evident that the percentage risk of CSF leakage can be dramatically decreased with experience, and this learning curve is unavoidable. According to the recent largest endoscopic studies in the literature, the percentage of CSF leaks ranges from 1.6% to 5.2% and is still decreasing.[18],[22],[26] With increasing experience in the endoscopic pituitary surgery, there is also reduction in the duration of surgery, the amount of mucosal trauma and the consequent postoperative discomfort, and the length of hospital stay.


  Suprasellar Meningioma Top


Meningiomas of the anterior cranial fossa and parasellar regions have traditionally been removed via various transcranial subfrontal/pterional approaches. Since the pioneering work of Jho[30] almost 2 decades back, the endonasal endoscopic approach (EEA) has been used more regularly for a variety of suprasellar lesions including meningiomas. Advantages of this approach over transcranial approaches for suprasellar meningiomas are several and include lack of brain retraction, minimal manipulation of the optic apparatus, and early identification of the pituitary stalk and gland. Aggressive removal of the involved bone and dura at the base provides an opportunity to achieve radical tumor resection (Simpson Grade 1), which is often the goal of surgery. Moreover, the tumor vascularity can be reduced in the early part of the operation by coagulating branches from the posterior ethmoidal arteries and parasellar meningeal vessels, which usually facilitates rapid removal of the devascularized tumor without any significant blood loss [Figure 3].
Figure 3: Endoscopic view of removal of tuberculum sellae meningioma through an extended endonasal endoscopic approach, showing anterior cerebral arteries in the midline above, optic chiasm and nerves in front, and separated tumor capsule below

Click here to view


When the optic canal is involved by the tumor, a 270° bony decompression can be performed by removing the medial wall, floor, and roof of the canal to remove the intracanalicular tumor [Figure 4]. The falciform ligament and the intracanalicular dura are also incised to facilitate tumor removal from the canal without much manipulation of the optic nerve. The midline transnasal approach is the ideal approach for bilateral decompression of the optic canals without the need to remove orbital roof/medial wall, as required in the transcranial approaches. The pattern of optic canal involvement by meningiomas, especially in the medial, inferior, or superior parts, often favors the midline endoscopic approach. It allows early extradural optic canal decompression, even in the case of extensive hyperostosis due to bone invasion by meningioma.[31]
Figure 4: Operative photograph showing removal of the intracanalicular meningioma and optic nerve decompression following 2700 opening of the right optic canal using pure endoscopic exposure

Click here to view


Direct comparison of the rates of GTR between transcranial and endoscopic surgery is not feasible because of the uncomparable sample characteristics and inadequate available data. Generally, the transnasal surgery is reserved for smaller tumors, while transcranial surgery is preferred for the larger and complex tumors that require wider exposure. Overall, the GTR rates for endoscopic surgery are reported as 81%–91% and for transcranial surgery as 70%–100% [Table 3].
Table 3: Literature review comparing surgical outcome in the largest published series of suprasellar meningiomas

Click here to view


Visual improvement is more commonly observed in 70%–80% of patients who present with deterioration of vision preoperatively, and nearly, 7%–12% of patients experience worsening of vision after surgery.[32],[33] The rates of postoperative visual improvement and deterioration vary from 85.7%–96.6% to 0%–3.6%, respectively, in endoscopic endonasal approach, as compared to 44.4%–90.6% and 3.6%–24.2%, respectively, in transcranial approaches for parasellar meningiomas.[34],[35] Koutourousiou et al.[31] reported visual improvement in transnasal surgery to be over 94% in patients in whom the tumor was extending into the optic canal. They believed the recovery in vision was primarily due to the adequate optic canal decompression and radical resection of the intracanalicular tumor which was possible only because of the wide exposure achieved by the endoscopic approach. The ability of unroofing the optic canal in transcranial exposures, on the other hand, is limited, especially in the medial and inferomedial aspects where tumor most commonly invades. The relative lower rate of visual improvement (74% ) in patients who underwent transcranial tumor removal, clearly reflects limitations in achieving adequate optic nerve decompression in this group of patients.[36] The optic canals are more easily accessible from an endonasal route, than the transcranial route, making the optic decompression safe and effective. Early optic nerve decompression and release from the tumor also avoid trauma due to the manipulation of tethered optic nerves during tumor dissection. This early optic canal decompression may be another reason for the higher rate of visual improvement with endoscopic endonasal procedure.[37],[38],[39]


  Craniopharyngioma Top


Craniopharyngioma is a slow-growing tumor originating from Rathke's pouch, representing approximately 2%–5% of all primary brain tumors, and has a bimodal age distribution (age, 5–14 years and 55–65 years).[40] The optimal management of craniopharyngiomas has been debated for decades. Although surgical resection of these tumors can be associated with considerable risks of morbidity due to their intimate involvement with critical neurovascular structures, surgery remains the first line of therapy and offers the best chance of radical resection and oncological cure.[41],[42],[43],[44],[45],[46],[47]

Advances in skull base approaches, modern microsurgical and endoscopic techniques, neuroimaging, and hormonal replacement therapy have allowed for safer gross total or near-total resection in the modern neurosurgical era with GTR rates ranging from 72.7% to 90%.[48],[49],[50] In the past, craniotomy and microsurgical tumor removal was considered a gold standard in the management of craniopharyngiomas and the only surgical technique to achieve a GTR. Majority of craniopharyngiomas, however, are located in the retrochiasmatic region, under the chiasm and extending up into the third ventricle. A tumor in this location can often be hidden from the operative view, especially with a prefixed chiasm, when approached from above via the transcranial route, and may therefore require extra brain retraction, manipulation of the optic nerves and other neurovascular structures, and additional exposure through lamina terminalis to access the tumor. Moreover, the transcranial exposure provides poor visualization of the undersurface of the chiasm where critical perforators supply the visual apparatus. Furthermore, the critical plane between the tumor capsule and the stalk and hypothalamus is poorly visualized from above, and a blind dissection in this region often increases the risk of potential injury. Results of the published studies with transcranial approaches have demonstrated perioperative mortality rate risk of 0%–20%[51],[52],[53] and pituitary-related endocrinopathy risk of up to 100%.[54] Hypothalamic obesity has been reported in as many as 70% of patients.[54]

In recent years, the extended EEA has been advocated for suprasellar–retrochiasmatic craniopharyngiomas.[55],[56],[57],[58],[59],[60] In contrast to the traditional extended transsphenoidal microscopic speculum-based technique, which allows tumor resection from the sellar and subdiaphragmatic regions through expanded sella turcica, the pure endoscopic-extended endonasal approach permits removal of more extensive craniopharyngiomas associated with normal-sized sella and supradiaphragmatic–suprasellar extensions.

The main advantage of pure endoscopy over transcranial microscopic approach includes its ability to provide direct visualization of the undersurface of the optic nerves and chiasm, pituitary stalk and its blood supply, hypothalamus, and anterior third ventricle using bimanual sharp microdissection techniques from below[14],[15],[61] [Figure 5], [Figure 6], [Figure 7], [Figure 8]. By avoiding blind manipulation near critical structures in the retrochiasmatic region, the endoscopic approach has improved our ability to avoid or minimize visual and hypothalamic complications.[58],[62] Evident data in the literature clearly suggest that in comparison with the transcranial approach, endonasal endoscopic resection can result in better visual outcomes, higher GTR rate, and stable quality of life, with comparable complication rates.[55],[60],[63],[64],[65] This technique has become arguably the preferred approach in the treatment of craniopharyngiomas.
Figure 5: Endoscopic approach to a suprasellar–retrochiasmatic craniopharyngioma. Intraoperative photograph showing separation of the pituitary stalk from the tumor by working in the well-defined arachnoid plane

Click here to view
Figure 6: Endoscopic photograph showing bimanual microdissection in the arachnoid plane for mobilization of the tumor capsule from the left oculomotor nerve, and basilar artery and its branches

Click here to view
Figure 7: Endoscopic view after complete removal of the retrochiasmal craniopharyngioma using extended endonasal endoscopic approach. Note hypothalamus and anterior third ventricle

Click here to view
Figure 8: Intraoperative endoscopic view of the anterior third ventricular cavity, showing both foramina of Monro, choroid plexus at the roof of the third ventricle, massa intermedia, cerebral aqueduct, and mammillary bodies

Click here to view


The endonasal endoscopic technique has major limitations when the craniopharyngioma is extending laterally into the sylvian fissure and superiorly into the interhemispheric fissure. Even with the aid of angled endoscopes and instrumentation, the maneuverability is severely restricted. Furthermore, direct microvascular repair, in the event of a vessel injury during tumor dissection, is difficult to perform with this approach. The problem of CSF leakage, despite regular use of vascularized pedicled nasoseptal flap and multilayered reconstruction techniques, still remains as a major postoperative morbidity.

In conclusion, the endoscopic skull base surgery has emerged recently as a viable alternative to the traditional transcranial surgery for the patients presenting with suprasellar lesions. It has great potentials and abilities to achieve the goal of radical tumor resection under direct vision with minimal complications and can be perceived as a minimally invasive technique. The steep learning curve needs to be addressed on a priority basis, to be able to make this technological advancement available to more skull base neurosurgeons and to help more and more of our patients. At present, we need larger clinical studies and more elaborate data, as well as the long-term results, to evaluate true efficacy and effectiveness of this method in the management of suprasellar pathologies.



 
  References Top

1.
Liu JK, Cohen-Gadol AA, Laws ER Jr., Cole CD, Kan P, Couldwell WT. Harvey Cushing and Oskar Hirsch: Early forefathers of modern transsphenoidal surgery. J Neurosurg 2005;103:1096-104.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Gandhi CD, Christiano LD, Eloy JA, Prestigiacomo CJ, Post KD. The historical evolution of transsphenoidal surgery: Facilitation by technological advances. Neurosurg Focus 2009;27:E8.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Guiot G, Thibaut B, Bourreau M. Extirpation of hypophyseal adenomas by trans-septal and trans-sphenoidal approaches. Ann Otolaryngol 1959;76:1017-31.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Hardy J. Transphenoidal microsurgery of the normal and pathological pituitary. Clin Neurosurg 1969;16:185-217.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Ebersold MJ, Quast LM, Laws ER Jr., Scheithauer B, Randall RV. Long-term results in transsphenoidal removal of nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas. J Neurosurg 1986;64:713-9.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Saito K, Kuwayama A, Yamamoto N, Sugita K. The transsphenoidal removal of nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas with suprasellar extensions: The open sella method and intentionally staged operation. Neurosurgery 1995;36:668-75.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Zhang X, Fei Z, Zhang J, Fu L, Zhang Z, Liu W, et al. Management of nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas with suprasellar extensions by transsphenoidal microsurgery. Surg Neurol 1999;52:380-5.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Cappabianca P, Alfieri A, de Divitiis E. Endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal approach to the sella: Towards functional endoscopic pituitary surgery (FEPS). Minim Invasive Neurosurg 1998;41:66-73.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Jankowski R, Auque J, Simon C, Marchal JC, Hepner H, Wayoff M. Endoscopic pituitary tumor surgery. Laryngoscope 1992;102:198-202.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Jho HD, Carrau RL, Ko Y, Daly MA. Endoscopic pituitary surgery: An early experience. Surg Neurol 1997;47:213-22.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Kaptain GJ, Vincent DA, Sheehan JP, Laws ER Jr. Transsphenoidal approaches for the extracapsular resection of midline suprasellar and anterior cranial base lesions. Neurosurgery 2001;49:94-100.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Kassam A, Snyderman CH, Mintz A, Gardner P, Carrau RL. Expanded endonasal approach: The rostrocaudal axis. Part I. Crista galli to the sella turcica. Neurosurg Focus 2005;19:E3.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Sankhla SK, Jayashankar N, Khan GM. Surgical management of selected pituitary macroadenomas using extended endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal approach: Early experience. Neurol India 2013;61:122-30.  Back to cited text no. 13
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
14.
Sankhla SK, Jayashankar N, Khan GM. Endoscopic endonasal transplanum transtuberculum approach for retrochiasmatic craniopharyngiomas: Operative nuances. Neurol India 2015;63:405-13.  Back to cited text no. 14
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
15.
Alalade AF, Ogando-Rivas E, Boatey J, Souweidane MM, Anand VK, Greenfield JP, et al. Suprasellar and recurrent pediatric craniopharyngiomas: Expanding indications for the extended endoscopic transsphenoidal approach. J Neurosurg Pediatr 2018;21:72-80.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Zimmer LA, Theodosopoulos PV. Anterior skull base surgery: Open versus endoscopic. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009;17:75-8.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Sankhla SK. Endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal surgery for pituitary macroadenoma. In: Minimally Invasive Neurosurgery and Multidisciplinary Neurotraumatology. Springer Verlag Publications; 2006. p. 195-201.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Cappabianca P, Cavallo LM, Colao A, de Divitiis E. Surgical complications associated with the endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal approach for pituitary adenomas. J Neurosurg 2002;97:293-8.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Dehdashti AR, Ganna A, Karabatsou K, Gentili F. Pure endoscopic endonasal approach for pituitary adenomas: Early surgical results in 200 patients and comparison with previous microsurgical series. Neurosurgery 2008;62:1006-15.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Frank G, Pasquini E, Farneti G, Mazzatenta D, Sciarretta V, Grasso V, et al. The endoscopic versus the traditional approach in pituitary surgery. Neuroendocrinology 2006;83:240-8.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Jho HD. Endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery. J Neurooncol 2001;54:187-95.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Kabil MS, Eby JB, Shahinian HK. Fully endoscopic endonasal vs. transseptal transsphenoidal pituitary surgery. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 2005;48:348-54.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Kassis S, De Battista JC, Raverot G, Jacob M, Simon E, Rabilloud M, et al. Endoscopy versus microsurgery: Results in a consecutive series of nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas. Neurochirurgie 2009;55:607-15.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Messerer M, De Battista JC, Raverot G, Kassis S, Dubourg J, Lapras V, et al. Evidence of improved surgical outcome following endoscopy for nonfunctioning pituitary adenoma removal. Neurosurg Focus 2011;30:E11.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Knosp E, Steiner E, Kitz K, Matula C. Pituitary adenomas with invasion of the cavernous sinus space: A magnetic resonance imaging classification compared with surgical findings. Neurosurgery 1993;33:610-7.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Tabaee A, Anand VK, Barrón Y, Hiltzik DH, Brown SM, Kacker A, et al. Predictors of short-term outcomes following endoscopic pituitary surgery. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2009;111:119-22.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Nomikos P, Ladar C, Fahlbusch R, Buchfelder M. Impact of primary surgery on pituitary function in patients with non-functioning pituitary adenomas – A study on 721 patients. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2004;146:27-35.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Nelson AT Jr., Tucker HS Jr., Becker DP. Residual anterior pituitary function following transsphenoidal resection of pituitary macroadenomas. J Neurosurg 1984;61:577-80.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Jane JA Jr., Laws ER Jr. The surgical management of pituitary adenomas in a series of 3,093 patients. J Am Coll Surg 2001;193:651-9.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Jho HD. Endoscopic endonasal approach to the optic nerve: A technical note. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 2001;44:190-3.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Koutourousiou M, Fernandez-Miranda JC, Stefko ST, Wang EW, Snyderman CH, Gardner PA. Endoscopic endonasal surgery for suprasellar meningiomas: Experience with 75 patients. J Neurosurg 2014;120:1326-39.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Dusick JR, Esposito F, Kelly DF, Cohan P, DeSalles A, Becker DP, et al. The extended direct endonasal transsphenoidal approach for nonadenomatous suprasellar tumors. J Neurosurg 2005;102:832-41.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Fatemi N, Dusick JR, de Paiva Neto MA, Kelly DF. The endonasal microscopic approach for pituitary adenomas and other parasellar tumors: A 10-year experience. Neurosurgery 2008;63:244-56.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Benjamin V, Russell SM. The microsurgical nuances of resecting tuberculum sellae meningiomas. Neurosurgery 2005;56:411-7.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Makarenko S, Carreras EM, Akagami R. Craniotomy for perisellar meningiomas: Comparison of simple (appropriate for endoscopic approach) versus complex anatomy and surgical outcomes. J Neurosurg 2017;126:1191-200.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Mahmoud M, Nader R, Al-Mefty O. Optic canal involvement in tuberculum sellae meningiomas: Influence on approach, recurrence, and visual recovery. Neurosurgery 2010;67:ons108-18.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Attia M, Kandasamy J, Jakimovski D, Bedrosian J, Alimi M, Lee DL, et al. The importance and timing of optic canal exploration and decompression during endoscopic endonasal resection of tuberculum sella and planum sphenoidale meningiomas. Neurosurgery 2012;71:58-67.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
de Divitiis E, Cavallo LM, Cappabianca P, Esposito F. Extended endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal approach for the removal of suprasellar tumors: Part 2. Neurosurgery 2007;60:46-58.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Liu JK, Christiano LD, Patel SK, Tubbs RS, Eloy JA. Surgical nuances for removal of tuberculum sellae meningiomas with optic canal involvement using the endoscopic endonasal extended transsphenoidal transplanum transtuberculum approach. Neurosurg Focus 2011;30:E2.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Bunin GR, Surawicz TS, Witman PA, Preston-Martin S, Davis F, Bruner JM. The descriptive epidemiology of craniopharyngioma. J Neurosurg 1998;89:547-51.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
Cohen M, Bartels U, Branson H, Kulkarni AV, Hamilton J. Trends in treatment and outcomes of pediatric craniopharyngioma, 1975-2011. Neuro Oncol 2013;15:767-74.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.
Kim SK, Wang KC, Shin SH, Choe G, Chi JG, Cho BK. Radical excision of pediatric craniopharyngioma: Recurrence pattern and prognostic factors. Childs Nerv Syst 2001;17:531-6.  Back to cited text no. 42
    
43.
Reddy GD, Hansen D, Patel A, Lin Y, Jea A, Lam S. Treatment options for pediatric craniopharyngioma. Surg Neurol Int 2016;7:S174-8.  Back to cited text no. 43
    
44.
Fahlbusch R, Honegger J, Paulus W, Huk W, Buchfelder M. Surgical treatment of craniopharyngiomas: Experience with 168 patients. J Neurosurg 1999;90:237-50.  Back to cited text no. 44
    
45.
Hoffman HJ, De Silva M, Humphreys RP, Drake JM, Smith ML, Blaser SI. Aggressive surgical management of craniopharyngiomas in children. J Neurosurg 1992;76:47-52.  Back to cited text no. 45
    
46.
Van Effenterre R, Boch AL. Craniopharyngioma in adults and children: A study of 122 surgical cases. J Neurosurg 2002;97:3-11.  Back to cited text no. 46
    
47.
Yaşargil MG, Curcic M, Kis M, Siegenthaler G, Teddy PJ, Roth P. Total removal of craniopharyngiomas. Approaches and long-term results in 144 patients. J Neurosurg 1990;73:3-11.  Back to cited text no. 47
    
48.
Dhandapani S, Singh H, Negm HM, Cohen S, Souweidane MM, Greenfield JP, et al. Endonasal endoscopic reoperation for residual or recurrent craniopharyngiomas. J Neurosurg 2017;126:418-30.  Back to cited text no. 48
    
49.
Gardner PA, Kassam AB, Snyderman CH, Carrau RL, Mintz AH, Grahovac S, et al. Outcomes following endoscopic, expanded endonasal resection of suprasellar craniopharyngiomas: A case series. J Neurosurg 2008;109:6-16.  Back to cited text no. 49
    
50.
Gerganov V, Metwali H, Samii A, Fahlbusch R, Samii M. Microsurgical resection of extensive craniopharyngiomas using a frontolateral approach: Operative technique and outcome. J Neurosurg 2014;120:559-70.  Back to cited text no. 50
    
51.
Elliott RE, Jane JA Jr., Wisoff JH. Surgical management of craniopharyngiomas in children: Meta-analysis and comparison of transcranial and transsphenoidal approaches. Neurosurgery 2011;69:630-43.  Back to cited text no. 51
    
52.
Mortini P, Losa M, Pozzobon G, Barzaghi R, Riva M, Acerno S, et al. Neurosurgical treatment of craniopharyngioma in adults and children: Early and long-term results in a large case series. J Neurosurg 2011;114:1350-9.  Back to cited text no. 52
    
53.
Crowley RK, Hamnvik OP, O'Sullivan EP, Behan LA, Smith D, Agha A, et al. Morbidity and mortality in patients with craniopharyngioma after surgery. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 2010;73:516-21.  Back to cited text no. 53
    
54.
Bartels U, Laperriere N, Bouffet E, Drake J. Intracystic therapies for cystic craniopharyngioma in childhood. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2012;3:39.  Back to cited text no. 54
    
55.
Bal E, Öge K, Berker M. Endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal surgery, A reliable method for treating primary and recurrent/Residual craniopharyngiomas: Nine years of experience. World Neurosurg 2016;94:375-85.  Back to cited text no. 55
    
56.
Conger AR, Lucas J, Zada G, Schwartz TH, Cohen-Gadol AA. Endoscopic extended transsphenoidal resection of craniopharyngiomas: Nuances of neurosurgical technique. Neurosurg Focus 2014;37:E10.  Back to cited text no. 56
    
57.
Koutourousiou M, Gardner PA, Fernandez-Miranda JC, Tyler-Kabara EC, Wang EW, Snyderman CH, et al. Endoscopic endonasal surgery for craniopharyngiomas: Surgical outcome in 64 patients. J Neurosurg 2013;119:1194-207.  Back to cited text no. 57
    
58.
Leng LZ, Greenfield JP, Souweidane MM, Anand VK, Schwartz TH. Endoscopic, endonasal resection of craniopharyngiomas: Analysis of outcome including extent of resection, cerebrospinal fluid leak, return to preoperative productivity, and body mass index. Neurosurgery 2012;70:110-23.  Back to cited text no. 58
    
59.
Moussazadeh N, Prabhu V, Bander ED, Cusic RC, Tsiouris AJ, Anand VK, et al. Endoscopic endonasal versus open transcranial resection of craniopharyngiomas: A case-matched single-institution analysis. Neurosurg Focus 2016;41:E7.  Back to cited text no. 59
    
60.
Sankhla SK, Jayashankar N, Khan GM. Extended endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal approach for retrochiasmatic craniopharyngioma: Surgical technique and results. J Pediatr Neurosci 2015;10:308-16.  Back to cited text no. 60
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
61.
Liu JK, Sevak IA, Carmel PW, Eloy JA. Microscopic versus endoscopic approaches for craniopharyngiomas: Choosing the optimal surgical corridor for maximizing extent of resection and complication avoidance using a personalized, tailored approach. Neurosurg Focus 2016;41:E5.  Back to cited text no. 61
    
62.
Komotar RJ, Starke RM, Raper DM, Anand VK, Schwartz TH. Endoscopic endonasal compared with microscopic transsphenoidal and open transcranial resection of craniopharyngiomas. World Neurosurg 2012;77:329-41.  Back to cited text no. 62
    
63.
Ali ZS, Bailey RL, Daniels LB, Vakhshori V, Lewis DJ, Hossain AT, et al. Comparative effectiveness of treatment options for pediatric craniopharyngiomas. J Neurosurg Pediatr 2014;13:178-88.  Back to cited text no. 63
    
64.
Jeswani S, Nuño M, Wu A, Bonert V, Carmichael JD, Black KL, et al. Comparative analysis of outcomes following craniotomy and expanded endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal resection of craniopharyngioma and related tumors: A single-institution study. J Neurosurg 2016;124:627-38.  Back to cited text no. 64
    
65.
Stefko ST, Snyderman C, Fernandez-Miranda J, Tyler-Kabara E, Wang E, Bodily L, et al. Visual outcomes after endoscopic endonasal approach for craniopharyngioma: The Pittsburgh experience. J Neurol Surg B Skull Base 2016;77:326-32.  Back to cited text no. 65
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4], [Figure 5], [Figure 6], [Figure 7], [Figure 8]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]



 

Top
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
Pituitary Adenoma
Suprasellar Meni...
Craniopharyngioma
References
Article Figures
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed379    
    Printed43    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded62    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal