3.9 Article

Endoscopic endonasal pituitary surgery: Evolution of surgical technique and equipment in 150 operations

Journal

MINIMALLY INVASIVE NEUROSURGERY
Volume 44, Issue 1, Pages 1-12

Publisher

GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
DOI: 10.1055/s-2001-13590

Keywords

acromegaly; Cushing's disease; endoscopy; pituitary adenoma; pituitary gland; prolactinoma; transsphenoidal surgery

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: The evolution of the senior author's (HD Jho) surgical experience on endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal pituitary surgery is reviewed in order to introduce a standardized surgical technique for pituitary endoscopy. Methods: The progressive evolution of the surgical technique and the development of surgical instrumentation in transsphenoidal endoscopy is reviewed based upon the experience of more than 150 operations performed by the senior author between the years 1993 and 1998. Results: An endoscope was used to assist visualization during conventional microscopic surgery in the first four cases (endoscope-assisted microsurgery). Subsequently, endonasal pituitary endoscopy was performed via a nostril. When the endonasal route was adopted, it eliminated the use of a transsphenoidal retractor. The use of vasoconstrictors and any form of nasal packing was discovered to be unnecessary. The inferior margin of the middle turbinate was such a consistent surgical landmark leading to the sella that the use of an intraoperative Fluoroscopic C-arm was also eliminated. The adoption of a septal breaker, variously angled suction cannulas and suction-coagulators has made the operation cleaner, easier and faster. As experience increased, the operation time progressively shortened and mucosal trauma became minimal. The median patient hospital stay was one night and postoperative discomfort was noted to be minimal. Conclusions: The evolution of the senior author's endoscopic pituitary surgery is reported with a description of our current standardized surgical technique.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available