Andrew S Little1, Daniel F Kelly2, William L White1, Paul A Gardner3, Juan C Fernandez-Miranda3, Michael R Chicoine4, Garni Barkhoudarian2, James P Chandler5, Daniel M Prevedello6, Brandon D Liebelt1, John Sfondouris1, Marc R Mayberg7. 1. 1Department of Neurosurgery, Barrow Neurological Institute, Phoenix, Arizona. 2. 2Pacific Brain Tumor Center and Pituitary Disorders Program, John Wayne Cancer Institute at Providence Saint John's Health Center, Santa Monica, California. 3. 3University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 4. 4Department of Neurological Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri. 5. 5Department of Neurological Surgery, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois. 6. 6Department of Neurological Surgery, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio; and. 7. 7Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Many surgeons have adopted fully endoscopic over microscopic transsphenoidal surgery for nonfunctioning pituitary tumors, although no high-quality evidence demonstrates superior patient outcomes with endoscopic surgery. The goal of this analysis was to compare these techniques in a prospective multicenter controlled study. METHODS: Extent of tumor resection was compared after endoscopic or microscopic transsphenoidal surgery in adults with nonfunctioning adenomas. The primary end point was gross-total tumor resection determined by postoperative MRI. Secondary end points included volumetric extent of tumor resection, pituitary hormone outcomes, and standard quality measures. RESULTS: Seven pituitary centers and 15 surgeons participated in the study. Of the 530 patients screened, 260 were enrolled (82 who underwent microscopic procedures, 177 who underwent endoscopic procedures, and 1 who cancelled surgery) between February 2015 and June 2017. Surgeons who used the microscopic technique were more experienced than the surgeons who used the endoscopic technique in terms of years in practice and number of transsphenoidal surgeries performed (p < 0.001). Gross-total resection was achieved in 80.0% (60/75) of microscopic surgery patients and 83.7% (139/166) of endoscopic surgery patients (p = 0.47, OR 0.8, 95% CI 0.4-1.6). Volumetric extent of resection, length of stay, surgery-related deaths, and unplanned readmission rates were similar between groups (p > 0.2). New hormone deficiency was present at 6 months in 28.4% (19/67) of the microscopic surgery patients and 9.7% (14/145) of the endoscopic surgery patients (p < 0.001, OR 3.7, 95% CI 1.7-7.7). Microscopic surgery cases were significantly shorter in duration than endoscopic surgery cases (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Experienced surgeons who performed microscopic surgery and less experienced surgeons who performed endoscopic surgery achieved similar extents of tumor resection and quality outcomes in patients with nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas. The endoscopic technique may be associated with lower rates of postoperative pituitary gland dysfunction. This study generally supports the transition to endoscopic pituitary surgery when the procedure is performed by proficient surgeons, although both techniques yield overall acceptable surgical outcomes.■ CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE Type of question: therapeutic; study design: prospective cohort trial; evidence: class III.Clinical trial registration no.: NCT02357498 (clinicaltrials.gov).
OBJECTIVE: Many surgeons have adopted fully endoscopic over microscopic transsphenoidal surgery for nonfunctioning pituitary tumors, although no high-quality evidence demonstrates superior patient outcomes with endoscopic surgery. The goal of this analysis was to compare these techniques in a prospective multicenter controlled study. METHODS: Extent of tumor resection was compared after endoscopic or microscopic transsphenoidal surgery in adults with nonfunctioning adenomas. The primary end point was gross-total tumor resection determined by postoperative MRI. Secondary end points included volumetric extent of tumor resection, pituitary hormone outcomes, and standard quality measures. RESULTS: Seven pituitary centers and 15 surgeons participated in the study. Of the 530 patients screened, 260 were enrolled (82 who underwent microscopic procedures, 177 who underwent endoscopic procedures, and 1 who cancelled surgery) between February 2015 and June 2017. Surgeons who used the microscopic technique were more experienced than the surgeons who used the endoscopic technique in terms of years in practice and number of transsphenoidal surgeries performed (p < 0.001). Gross-total resection was achieved in 80.0% (60/75) of microscopic surgery patients and 83.7% (139/166) of endoscopic surgery patients (p = 0.47, OR 0.8, 95% CI 0.4-1.6). Volumetric extent of resection, length of stay, surgery-related deaths, and unplanned readmission rates were similar between groups (p > 0.2). New hormone deficiency was present at 6 months in 28.4% (19/67) of the microscopic surgery patients and 9.7% (14/145) of the endoscopic surgery patients (p < 0.001, OR 3.7, 95% CI 1.7-7.7). Microscopic surgery cases were significantly shorter in duration than endoscopic surgery cases (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Experienced surgeons who performed microscopic surgery and less experienced surgeons who performed endoscopic surgery achieved similar extents of tumor resection and quality outcomes in patients with nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas. The endoscopic technique may be associated with lower rates of postoperative pituitary gland dysfunction. This study generally supports the transition to endoscopic pituitary surgery when the procedure is performed by proficient surgeons, although both techniques yield overall acceptable surgical outcomes.■ CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE Type of question: therapeutic; study design: prospective cohort trial; evidence: class III.Clinical trial registration no.: NCT02357498 (clinicaltrials.gov).
Entities:
Keywords:
endoscopic surgery; extent of resection; microscopic surgery; nonfunctioning adenoma; pituitary surgery; transsphenoidal surgery
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: Tyler D Alexander; Chandala Chitguppi; Sarah Collopy; Kira Murphy; Pascal Lavergne; Prachi Patel; Tawfiq Khoury; Mindy Rabinowitz; Gurston G Nyquist; Marc R Rosen; Christopher J Farrell; Michael Karsy; James J Evans Journal: J Neurol Surg B Skull Base Date: 2022-01-31
Authors: Tyler D Alexander; Sarah Collopy; Siyuan Yu; Michael Karsy; Chandala Chitguppi; Christopher J Farrell; James J Evans Journal: J Neurol Surg B Skull Base Date: 2021-09-27
Authors: Charlie Osborne; Daniel Lewis; Ben Dixon; Carmela Caputo; Alison Magee; Kanna Gnanalingham; Yi Yuen Wang Journal: Acta Neurochir (Wien) Date: 2022-02-08 Impact factor: 2.816
Authors: Mohammed Bafaquh; Sami Khairy; Mahmoud Alyamany; Abdullah Alobaid; Gmaan Alzhrani; Ali Alkhaibary; Wafa F Aldhafeeri; Areej A Alaman; Hanan N Aljohani; Basim Noor Elahi; Fatimah A Alghabban; Yasser Orz; Abdulrahman Y Alturki Journal: Surg Neurol Int Date: 2020-10-21
Authors: Tomáš Česák; Pavel Póczoš; Jaroslav Adamkov; Petr Čelakovský; Filip Gabalec; Jiří Soukup; Radka Dvořáková; Petr Krůpa Journal: Croat Med J Date: 2020-10-31 Impact factor: 1.351
Authors: Jai Deep Thakur; Alex Corlin; Regin Jay Mallari; Samantha Yawitz; Amalia Eisenberg; Walavan Sivakumar; Chester Griffiths; Ricardo L Carrau; Sarah Rettinger; Pejman Cohan; Howard Krauss; Katherine A Araque; Garni Barkhoudarian; Daniel F Kelly Journal: Pituitary Date: 2021-07-02 Impact factor: 4.107