4.5 Article

Surgical Outcomes and Predictors of Visual Function Alterations After Transcranial Surgery for Large-to-Giant Pituitary Adenomas

Journal

WORLD NEUROSURGERY
Volume 141, Issue -, Pages E60-E69

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2020.04.151

Keywords

Pituitary adenoma; Subarachnoid space invasion; Transcranial surgery; Visual outcome

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: Factors associated with visual outcomes after transcranial surgery for large-to-giant pituitary adenomas have not been fully elucidated. METHODS: We recruited 37 patients with large-to-giant pituitary adenomas between January 2014 and December 2016 and assessed their tumor characteristics and surgical outcomes. Visual acuity and visual field were evaluated by visual impairment score before and 3-6 months after transcranial surgery. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was applied to show the factors associated with visual outcomes after surgery. RESULTS: The severity levels of visual impairment before surgery were mild, moderate, severe, and complete in 24.3% (9/37), 24.3% (9/37), 35.1% (13/37), and 16.2% (6/37), respectively. After surgery, the visual function was improved, stabilized, and worsened in 43.2% (16/37), 43.2% (16/37), and 13.5% (5/37) of patients, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that subarachnoid space invasion was the only independent prognostic factor adversely influencing the postoperative visual outcomes. Patients with subarachnoid space invasion had a higher possibility of visual deterioration (36.4% vs. 3.8%; P = 0.021) after transcranial surgery, compared with those without subarachnoid space invasion. CONCLUSIONS: Visual compromise is still an unignorable complication during transcranial surgery for large-to-giant pituitary adenomas. Subarachnoid space invasion indicated by preoperative magnetic resonance imaging was an independent negative predictor for visual outcomes after surgery.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available