» Articles » PMID: 37371322

Current Role of Endoscopic Endonasal Approach for Craniopharyngiomas: A 10-Year Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparison with the Open Transcranial Approach

Abstract

In recent years, the endoscopic endonasal approach (EEA) for craniopharyngiomas has proven to be a safe option for extensive tumor resection, with minimal or no manipulation of the optic nerves and excellent visualization of the superior hypophyseal branches when compared to the Transcranial Approach (TCA). However, there is an ongoing debate regarding the criteria for selecting different approaches. To explore the current results of EEA and discuss its role in the management of craniopharyngiomas, we performed MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS searches from 2012 to 2022. Baseline characteristics, the extent of resection, and clinical outcomes were evaluated. Statistical analysis was performed through an X and Fisher exact test, and a comparison between quantitative variables through a Kruskal-Wallis and verified with post hoc Bonferroni. The tumor volume was similar in both groups (EEA 11.92 cm, -TCA 13.23 cm). The mean follow-up in months was 39.9 for EEA and 43.94 for TCA, = 0.76). The EEA group presented a higher visual improvement rate (41.96% vs. 25% for TCA, < 0.0001, OR 7.7). Permanent DI was less frequent with EEA (29.20% vs. 67.40% for TCA, < 0.0001, OR 0.2). CSF Leaks occurred more frequently with EEA (9.94% vs. 0.70% for TCA, < 0.0001, OR 15.8). Recurrence rates were lower in the EEA group (EEA 15.50% vs. for TCA 21.20%, = 0.04, OR 0.7). Our results demonstrate that, in selected cases, EEA for resection of craniopharyngiomas is associated with better results regarding visual preservation and extent of tumor resection. Postoperative CSF leak rates associated with EEA have improved compared to the historical series. The decision-making process should consider each person's characteristics; however, it is noticeable that recent data regarding EEA justify its widespread application as a first-line approach in centers of excellence for skull base surgery.

Citing Articles

Advancements in Imaging and Neurosurgical Techniques for Brain Tumor Resection: A Comprehensive Review.

Vadhavekar N, Sabzvari T, Laguardia S, Sheik T, Prakash V, Gupta A Cureus. 2024; 16(10):e72745.

PMID: 39618625 PMC: 11607568. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.72745.


Comparative efficacy of transcranial and endoscopic surgery for craniopharyngioma: A systematic review and meta-analysis of contemporary literature.

Wisnawa I, Immadoel Haq I Surg Neurol Int. 2024; 15:356.

PMID: 39524598 PMC: 11544467. DOI: 10.25259/SNI_399_2024.


Endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal approach improves endocrine function and surgical outcome in primary craniopharyngioma resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Li S, Ye Y, Nie C, Huang X, Yan K, Zhang F World J Surg Oncol. 2024; 22(1):137.

PMID: 38790064 PMC: 11118612. DOI: 10.1186/s12957-024-03411-8.


Integrating Systemic Therapies into the Multimodality Therapy of Patients with Craniopharyngioma.

Gritsch D, Santagata S, Brastianos P Curr Treat Options Oncol. 2024; 25(2):261-273.

PMID: 38300480 PMC: 11203386. DOI: 10.1007/s11864-023-01156-2.


Neuroendoscopy: intraventricular and skull base tumor resection in children.

Cinalli M, Malineni S, Spennato P, Nayak S, Cinalli G, Deopujari C Childs Nerv Syst. 2023; 39(10):2737-2756.

PMID: 37589762 DOI: 10.1007/s00381-023-06110-z.

References
1.
Hong C, Omay S . The Role of Surgical Approaches in the Multi-Modal Management of Adult Craniopharyngiomas. Curr Oncol. 2022; 29(3):1408-1421. PMC: 8947636. DOI: 10.3390/curroncol29030118. View

2.
Nie C, Ye Y, Wu J, Zhao H, Jiang X, Wang H . Clinical Outcomes of Transcranial and Endoscopic Endonasal Surgery for Craniopharyngiomas: A Single-Institution Experience. Front Oncol. 2022; 12:755342. PMC: 8866852. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.755342. View

3.
Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, Kwiatkowski F, Panis Y, Chipponi J . Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg. 2003; 73(9):712-6. DOI: 10.1046/j.1445-2197.2003.02748.x. View

4.
Almeida J, Workewych A, Takami H, Velasquez C, Oswari S, Asha M . Surgical Anatomy Applied to the Resection of Craniopharyngiomas: Anatomic Compartments and Surgical Classifications. World Neurosurg. 2020; 142:611-625. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2020.05.171. View

5.
Komotar R, Starke R, Raper D, Anand V, Schwartz T . Endoscopic endonasal compared with microscopic transsphenoidal and open transcranial resection of craniopharyngiomas. World Neurosurg. 2012; 77(2):329-41. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2011.07.011. View