Adham M Khalafallah1, Angela L Liang1, Adrian E Jimenez1, Nicholas R Rowan2, Nelson M Oyesiku3, Adam N Mamelak4, Debraj Mukherjee5. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 1800 Orleans Street, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA. 2. Department of Otolaryngology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. 3. Department of Neurosurgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA. 4. Department of Neurosurgery, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 5. Department of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 1800 Orleans Street, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA. dmukher1@jhmi.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This comparative survey of surgical practice patterns between 2010 and 2020 aims to elicit trends in practice patterns for transsphenoidal surgery and to identify areas for improvement. METHODS: Web-based surveys were sent to the International Society of Pituitary Surgeons via a membership listserv in 2010 and 2020. These 33-item surveys collected information on demographics, surgical approach, perceived advantages and disadvantages, and recommendations for improvements. Statistical analyses were conducted using the Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables and Fisher's exact test for categorical variables. RESULTS: There were 51 respondents in 2010 and 82 respondents in 2020. The majority were full-time academic surgeons from the United States or Europe. Preference for a purely endoscopic technique increased from 43% in 2010 to 87% in 2020. Preference for routinely working with an otolaryngologist or second neurosurgeon increased from 35 to 51%. Most surgeons (74%) reported that they were more likely to achieve a greater extent of resection with the endoscope, though 51% noted increased operating time. The most commonly rated advantage (34%) of endoscopic TSS was fewer postoperative nasoseptal perforations; the most commonly (34%) rated disadvantage was more postoperative complications, including cerebrospinal fluid leak. Respondents were divided on whether microscopic TSS should continue to be taught in residency. Many (32%) advocated for improved endoscopic instrumentation and team training. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic TSS is now the clearly preferred method for surgery amongst a cohort of higher-volume academic neurosurgeons. This trend is likely to continue, and this provides guidelines for future training.
PURPOSE: This comparative survey of surgical practice patterns between 2010 and 2020 aims to elicit trends in practice patterns for transsphenoidal surgery and to identify areas for improvement. METHODS: Web-based surveys were sent to the International Society of Pituitary Surgeons via a membership listserv in 2010 and 2020. These 33-item surveys collected information on demographics, surgical approach, perceived advantages and disadvantages, and recommendations for improvements. Statistical analyses were conducted using the Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables and Fisher's exact test for categorical variables. RESULTS: There were 51 respondents in 2010 and 82 respondents in 2020. The majority were full-time academic surgeons from the United States or Europe. Preference for a purely endoscopic technique increased from 43% in 2010 to 87% in 2020. Preference for routinely working with an otolaryngologist or second neurosurgeon increased from 35 to 51%. Most surgeons (74%) reported that they were more likely to achieve a greater extent of resection with the endoscope, though 51% noted increased operating time. The most commonly rated advantage (34%) of endoscopic TSS was fewer postoperative nasoseptal perforations; the most commonly (34%) rated disadvantage was more postoperative complications, including cerebrospinal fluid leak. Respondents were divided on whether microscopic TSS should continue to be taught in residency. Many (32%) advocated for improved endoscopic instrumentation and team training. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic TSS is now the clearly preferred method for surgery amongst a cohort of higher-volume academic neurosurgeons. This trend is likely to continue, and this provides guidelines for future training.
Authors: Mary Saad; Benjamin Salze; Bernard Trillat; Olivier Corniou; Alexandre Vallée; Morgan Le Guen; Aurélien Latouche; Marc Fischler Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-09-30 Impact factor: 4.964
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
Authors: YouQing Yang; YouYuan Bao; ShenHao Xie; Bin Tang; Xiao Wu; Le Yang; Jie Wu; Han Ding; ShaoYang Li; SuYue Zheng; Tao Hong Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-07-20 Impact factor: 6.244