OBJECTIVE: Esthesioneuroblastomas represent a surgical challenge because of their anatomical location, the necessity of achieving negative margins, and the often-cosmetically disfiguring transfacial approaches needed. Recently, expanded endonasal endoscopic approaches have been developed, either alone or in combination with a craniotomy. We conducted a systematic review of case series and case reports to compare outcomes between these various surgical approaches. METHODS: A MEDLINE search was conducted of the modern literature (1985-2010) to identify open and endoscopic surgical series. Tumor and patient characteristics, Kadish stage, extent of resection, and progression-free and overall survival were recorded and analyzed by approach. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to assess overall survival and progression-free survival. RESULTS: Forty-seven studies comprising 453 patients were included. The endoscopic cohort had a greater proportion of Kadish Stage A tumors compared with the craniofacial group. Gross total resection was achieved in 98.1% of patients who underwent an endoscopic approach compared with 81.3% for the craniofacial and 100% for the cranionasal cohorts. Local recurrence occurred in 8.0% of patients in the endoscopic group compared with 22.1% in the craniofacial and 16.7% in the cranionasal cohorts. CONCLUSION: In well-selected cases, cranionasal and endonasal approaches can be safe and effective. An ongoing evaluation of the benefits and limitations are necessary to better define the ideal patient population and patient-specific risk factors for the use of these minimal access techniques.
OBJECTIVE:Esthesioneuroblastomas represent a surgical challenge because of their anatomical location, the necessity of achieving negative margins, and the often-cosmetically disfiguring transfacial approaches needed. Recently, expanded endonasal endoscopic approaches have been developed, either alone or in combination with a craniotomy. We conducted a systematic review of case series and case reports to compare outcomes between these various surgical approaches. METHODS: A MEDLINE search was conducted of the modern literature (1985-2010) to identify open and endoscopic surgical series. Tumor and patient characteristics, Kadish stage, extent of resection, and progression-free and overall survival were recorded and analyzed by approach. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to assess overall survival and progression-free survival. RESULTS: Forty-seven studies comprising 453 patients were included. The endoscopic cohort had a greater proportion of Kadish Stage A tumors compared with the craniofacial group. Gross total resection was achieved in 98.1% of patients who underwent an endoscopic approach compared with 81.3% for the craniofacial and 100% for the cranionasal cohorts. Local recurrence occurred in 8.0% of patients in the endoscopic group compared with 22.1% in the craniofacial and 16.7% in the cranionasal cohorts. CONCLUSION: In well-selected cases, cranionasal and endonasal approaches can be safe and effective. An ongoing evaluation of the benefits and limitations are necessary to better define the ideal patient population and patient-specific risk factors for the use of these minimal access techniques.
Authors: Aileen Wertz; Todd Hollon; Lawrence J Marentette; Stephen E Sullivan; Jonathan B McHugh; Erin L McKean Journal: J Neurol Surg B Skull Base Date: 2017-08-17
Authors: Soroush Larjani; Eric Monteiro; Ian Witterick; Allan Vescan; Gelareh Zadeh; Fred Gentili; David P Goldstein; John R de Almeida Journal: J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2016-09-07