Analysis of transnasal endoscopic versus transseptal microscopic approach for excision of pituitary tumors.

Thomas S Higgins, Chad Courtemanche, Daniel Karakla, Barry Strasnick, Ran Vijay Singh, Joseph L Koen, Joseph K Han
{"title":"Analysis of transnasal endoscopic versus transseptal microscopic approach for excision of pituitary tumors.","authors":"Thomas S Higgins,&nbsp;Chad Courtemanche,&nbsp;Daniel Karakla,&nbsp;Barry Strasnick,&nbsp;Ran Vijay Singh,&nbsp;Joseph L Koen,&nbsp;Joseph K Han","doi":"10.2500/ajr.2008.22.3246","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The traditional method of pituitary tumor excision is transseptal microscopic excision; however, the transnasal transsphenoidal endoscopic approach has shown comparable results with the transseptal microscopic approach at some institutions. The objective of this study is to compare the two types of sellar and parasellar mass resection: transnasal transsphenoidal endoscopic excision versus transseptal microscopic excision.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective cohort analysis was performed on subjects who were referred to a tertiary hospital for surgical management of sellar or parasellar masses. The two groups of patients either underwent a transnasal endoscopic approach with endoscopic excision or transseptal microscopic excision. Demographics, tumor characteristics, operative details, length of hospital stay, intraoperative and postoperative complications, level of postoperative pain, recurrence rate, use of computed tomography (CT) image guidance, and length of follow-up were gathered. The data between the two groups were then compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The analysis included 19 subjects who underwent endoscopic excision and 29 subjects who underwent transseptal microscopic excision. Null macroadenoma was the most common sellar mass followed by prolactinoma. There were no statistical differences in rates of perioperative complications and suprasellar or cavernous sinus invasion. Patients who underwent an endoscopic approach had shorter operative times, lower estimated blood loss, less lumbar drain use, less pain, and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (p < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The two approaches show similar intraoperative characteristics and immediate complication rates. Transnasal transsphenoidal endoscopic excision is a reasonable alternative to the traditional method of sellar mass excision.</p>","PeriodicalId":72175,"journal":{"name":"American journal of rhinology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2500/ajr.2008.22.3246","citationCount":"92","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of rhinology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2500/ajr.2008.22.3246","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 92

Abstract

Background: The traditional method of pituitary tumor excision is transseptal microscopic excision; however, the transnasal transsphenoidal endoscopic approach has shown comparable results with the transseptal microscopic approach at some institutions. The objective of this study is to compare the two types of sellar and parasellar mass resection: transnasal transsphenoidal endoscopic excision versus transseptal microscopic excision.

Methods: A retrospective cohort analysis was performed on subjects who were referred to a tertiary hospital for surgical management of sellar or parasellar masses. The two groups of patients either underwent a transnasal endoscopic approach with endoscopic excision or transseptal microscopic excision. Demographics, tumor characteristics, operative details, length of hospital stay, intraoperative and postoperative complications, level of postoperative pain, recurrence rate, use of computed tomography (CT) image guidance, and length of follow-up were gathered. The data between the two groups were then compared.

Results: The analysis included 19 subjects who underwent endoscopic excision and 29 subjects who underwent transseptal microscopic excision. Null macroadenoma was the most common sellar mass followed by prolactinoma. There were no statistical differences in rates of perioperative complications and suprasellar or cavernous sinus invasion. Patients who underwent an endoscopic approach had shorter operative times, lower estimated blood loss, less lumbar drain use, less pain, and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (p < 0.05).

Conclusion: The two approaches show similar intraoperative characteristics and immediate complication rates. Transnasal transsphenoidal endoscopic excision is a reasonable alternative to the traditional method of sellar mass excision.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
经鼻内镜与经鼻中隔显微入路在垂体肿瘤切除术中的应用分析。
背景:传统的垂体肿瘤切除方法是经隔膜显微切除;然而,在一些机构,经鼻经蝶窦内镜入路与经鼻中隔显微入路的结果相当。本研究的目的是比较鞍和鞍旁肿物切除的两种类型:经鼻经蝶窦内镜切除与经隔膜显微切除。方法:回顾性队列分析的对象进行了转介到三级医院手术治疗鞍或鞍旁肿块。两组患者均行经鼻内镜入路内镜切除或经鼻中隔显微切除。收集人口统计学、肿瘤特征、手术细节、住院时间、术中及术后并发症、术后疼痛程度、复发率、使用CT图像引导、随访时间。然后比较两组之间的数据。结果:分析包括19例经内镜切除的患者和29例经隔镜切除的患者。无大腺瘤是最常见的鞍肿块,其次是泌乳素瘤。围手术期并发症、鞍上窦或海绵窦侵犯的发生率无统计学差异。采用内窥镜入路的患者手术时间更短,估计出血量更少,腰椎引流管使用更少,疼痛更少,术后住院时间更短(p < 0.05)。结论:两种入路术中特点及即刻并发症发生率相近。经鼻经蝶窦内镜切除是一种合理的替代传统的鞍块切除方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Perspectives on the etiology of chronic rhinosinusitis: an immune barrier hypothesis. Comparison of laryngeal mask with endotracheal tube for anesthesia in endoscopic sinus surgery. The effect of nasal surgery on snoring. Results of endoscopic maxillary mega-antrostomy in recalcitrant maxillary sinusitis. The efficacy of topical antibiofilm agents in a sheep model of rhinosinusitis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1