4.3 Article

Transsphenoidal surgery assisted by a new guidance device: Results of a series of 747 cases

Journal

CLINICAL NEUROLOGY AND NEUROSURGERY
Volume 113, Issue 8, Pages 626-630

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2011.04.010

Keywords

Pituitary adenoma; Transsphenoidal surgery; Sphenoid sinus; Orientation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: The objective of this study is to report the efficacy and safety of microsurgical transsphenoidal surgery using a frame for sella guidance in a series of patients with untreated pituitary adenoma. Methods: In this study, seven hundred and forty-seven patients undergoing transsphenoidal resection of a pituitary adenoma involving use of the frame were included. Follow-up of twelve to one hundred months was performed in all patients. Results: During the procedures using the frame, pituitary adenomas were fully exposed, and no cavernous sinus haemorrhage due to anteroposterior displacement or internal carotid artery lesion due to right-and-left deviation occurred. The duration of the surgical procedure ranged from 28 min to 87 min with a mean of 44 min. The most frequent tumour type was prolactin-secreting adenoma (32.4%), followed by clinically non-functioning adenoma (NFPA) (28.5%), growth hormone-secreting adenoma (25.0%), and adrenocorticotropin-secreting adenoma (13.7%). Normalisation of visual defects occurred in 226(42.2%) of the 535 patients with visual disturbances. Normalisation of hormone occurred in 458 of 551 patients with endocrine-active tumour in the follow-up period. Two patients died as a consequence of surgery. Conclusion: The endonasal transsphenoidal technique is a safe, quick, and effective approach to pituitary adenomas. Our guidance frame allows the surgeon to open and close the wound rapidly, which avoids trajectory deviation and shortens the duration of the surgical procedure. (C ) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available