Endoscopic Midline and Paramedian Supracerebellar Infratentorial Approaches to Pineal Region Tumors: A Clinical Study and Approach Comparison

OBJECTIVE: This study was to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of endoscopic midline and paramedian supracerebellar infratentorial approaches (EM-SCITA and EPM-SCITA) for pineal region tumors.METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 58 patients who underwent EM-SCITA and EPM-SCITA for pineal region tumors. Among them, 23 patients were treated with EM-SCITA, and 35 with EPM-SCITA. The patients were followed up for 6e84 months with magnetic resonance imaging and Karnofsky Performance Status scores.RESULTS: The average age of the patients was 37.98 years, and there were 16 women (27.6%). The average maximum diameter of the tumors was 2.92 cm. Gross total resection was achieved in 46 patients (79.31%). There were 45 patients (77.6%) whose Karnofsky Performance Status score was >70 at the final follow-up. There was no sig- -ificant difference among the above items between EM-SCITA and EPM-SCITA. However, EM-SCITA required a longer craniotomy and closure time, with a larger bone and dural flap, with more bridging veins sacrificed. EPM-SCITA simplified the opening of the quadrigeminal cistern, and it was beneficial to expose the contralateral wall of the third ventricle. The longer and angled path limited the exposure of the anterior third ventricle and the ipsilateral wall of the third ventricle.CONCLUSIONS: Both approaches had remarkable clin-ical effects. The anatomy of EM-SCITA was easy to un-derstand and has a larger operating space; it is suitable for neurosurgical beginners. In contrast, EPM-SCITA has limited operation space, an intricate anatomy, and is suit-able for experienced operators. The occurrence of post-operative hydrocephalus should be alerted by EPM-SCITA.

Automated summary

This study analyzed the advantages and disadvantages of endoscopic midline and paramedian supracerebellar infratentorial approaches for pineal region tumors. The results showed that both approaches had remarkable clinical effects, but had their own characteristics and limitations.