Yoshua Esquenazi1, Walid I Essayed2, Harminder Singh3, Elizabeth Mauer4, Mudassir Ahmed2, Paul J Christos5, Theodore H Schwartz6. 1. Vivian L. Smith Department of Neurosurgery, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas, USA. Electronic address: Yoshua.EsquenaziLevy@uth.tmc.edu. 2. Department of Neurosurgery, Weill Cornell Medical College, Cornell University, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York, USA. 3. Department of Neurosurgery, Weill Cornell Medical College, Cornell University, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York, USA; Department of Neurological Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA. 4. Healthcare Policy and Research, Division of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York, USA. 5. Department of Neurological Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA. 6. Department of Neurosurgery, Weill Cornell Medical College, Cornell University, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York, USA; Department of Otolaryngology, Weill Cornell Medical College, Cornell University, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York, USA; Department of Neuroscience, Weill Cornell Medical College, Cornell University, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Surgery for recurrent/residual pituitary adenomas is increasingly being performed through endoscopic surgery. Whether this new technology has altered the indications and outcomes of surgery is unknown. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies to compare the indications and outcomes between microscopic and endoscopic approaches. METHODS: A PubMed search was conducted (1985-2015) to identify surgical series of endoscopic endonasal and microscopic transsphenoidal resection of residual or recurrent pituitary adenomas. Data were extracted regarding tumor characteristics, surgical treatment, extent of resection, endocrine remission, visual outcome, and complications. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies met inclusion criteria. A total of 292 patients were in the endoscopic group, and 648 patients were in the microscopic group. Endoscopic cases were more likely nonfunctional (P < 0.001) macroadenomas (P < 0.001) with higher rates of cavernous sinus invasion (P = 0.012). The pooled rate of gross total tumor resection was 53.5% for the endoscopic group and 46.6% for the microscopic group. Endocrine remission was achieved in 53.0% and 46.7% of patients, and visual improvement occurred in 73.2% and 49.6% for the endoscopic and microscopic groups. Cerebrospinal fluid leak and pituitary insufficiency were higher in the endoscopic group. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis indicates that the use of the endoscope to reoperate on residual or recurrent adenomas has only led to modest increases in resection rates. However, larger more complex cases are being tackled, so direct comparisons are misleading. The most dramatic change has been in visual improvement along with modest increases in risk. Reoperation for recurrent or residual adenomas is a safe and effective treatment option.
OBJECTIVE: Surgery for recurrent/residual pituitary adenomas is increasingly being performed through endoscopic surgery. Whether this new technology has altered the indications and outcomes of surgery is unknown. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies to compare the indications and outcomes between microscopic and endoscopic approaches. METHODS: A PubMed search was conducted (1985-2015) to identify surgical series of endoscopic endonasal and microscopic transsphenoidal resection of residual or recurrent pituitary adenomas. Data were extracted regarding tumor characteristics, surgical treatment, extent of resection, endocrine remission, visual outcome, and complications. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies met inclusion criteria. A total of 292 patients were in the endoscopic group, and 648 patients were in the microscopic group. Endoscopic cases were more likely nonfunctional (P < 0.001) macroadenomas (P < 0.001) with higher rates of cavernous sinus invasion (P = 0.012). The pooled rate of gross total tumor resection was 53.5% for the endoscopic group and 46.6% for the microscopic group. Endocrine remission was achieved in 53.0% and 46.7% of patients, and visual improvement occurred in 73.2% and 49.6% for the endoscopic and microscopic groups. Cerebrospinal fluid leak and pituitary insufficiency were higher in the endoscopic group. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis indicates that the use of the endoscope to reoperate on residual or recurrent adenomas has only led to modest increases in resection rates. However, larger more complex cases are being tackled, so direct comparisons are misleading. The most dramatic change has been in visual improvement along with modest increases in risk. Reoperation for recurrent or residual adenomas is a safe and effective treatment option.
Authors: Ricardo J Komotar; Robert M Starke; Daniel M S Raper; Vijay K Anand; Theodore H Schwartz Journal: World Neurosurg Date: 2011-11-07 Impact factor: 2.104
Authors: R B Friedman; E H Oldfield; L K Nieman; G P Chrousos; J L Doppman; G B Cutler; D L Loriaux Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 1989-10 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Nancy McLaughlin; Edward R Laws; Nelson M Oyesiku; Laurence Katznelson; Daniel F Kelly Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Khodayar Goshtasbi; Brandon M Lehrich; Mehdi Abouzari; Arash Abiri; Jack Birkenbeuel; Ming-Ying Lan; Wei-Hsin Wang; Gilbert Cadena; Frank P K Hsu; Edward C Kuan Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2020-03-13 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Leonie H A Broersen; Nienke R Biermasz; Wouter R van Furth; Friso de Vries; Marco J T Verstegen; Olaf M Dekkers; Alberto M Pereira Journal: Pituitary Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 4.107
Authors: Martin Májovský; Andre Grotenhuis; Nicolas Foroglou; Francesco Zenga; Sebastien Froehlich; Florian Ringel; Nicolas Sampron; Nick Thomas; Martin Komarc; David Netuka Journal: Neurosurg Rev Date: 2021-08-02 Impact factor: 2.800