4.6 Article

Extended endoscopic endonasal approach for selected pituitary adenomas: early experience Clinical article

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY
Volume 114, Issue 2, Pages 345-353

Publisher

AMER ASSOC NEUROLOGICAL SURGEONS
DOI: 10.3171/2010.9.JNS10262

Keywords

extended endoscopic endonasal approach; pituitary adenoma; transsphenoidal surgery; fibrous adenoma; dumbbell adenoma; extended suprasellar approach

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Object. Whereas most pituitary adenomas are removable via the transsphenoidal approach, certain cases, such as dumbbell-shaped or suprasellar adenomas and recurrent and/or fibrous tumors, remain difficult to treat. The authors present their experience with the extended endoscopic endonasal approach to the suprasellar area in managing this subset of tumors, which are classically treated through a transcranial route. Methods. From June 1997 to December 2008, 615 patients underwent endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal surgery for pituitary adenomas in the Department of Neurosurgery of the Universita degli Studi di Napoli Federico II. Of this group, 20 patients with pituitary adenomas needed an extended endoscopic endonasal transtuberculum/transplanum approach for tumor removal. Two surgical corridors were used during the transsphenoidal approach: 1) the conventional endosellar extraarachnoidal corridor and 2) a suprasellar transarachnoidal corridor. Results. The extent of resection was gross total in 12 (60%) of the 20 patients, near total in 4 (20%), subtotal in 3 (15%), and partial in 1 (5%). Postoperative CSF leakage occurred in 1 patient. One patient experienced worsening of temporal hemianopsia. Conclusions. The authors' initial results with the extended endoscopic approach to the suprasellar area for selected pituitary adenomas are promising and may justify a widening of the current classical indications for transsphenoidal surgery. (DOI: 10.3171/2010.9.JNS10262)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available