Visual outcomes in tuberculum sellae meningiomas comparing transcranial and endoscopic endonasal approaches

Tuberculum sellae meningiomas (TSM) account for 3–10% of intracranial meningiomas. Visual loss is the presenting symptom in up to 80% of cases. Surgical management poses a great challenge due to tumor proximity to neurovascular structures such as the optic nerve and the internal carotid artery (ICA)...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:World neurosurgery: X 2024-07, Vol.23, p.100319-100319, Article 100319
Hauptverfasser: Marian-Magaña, Ricardo, Sangrador-Deitos, Marcos V., Rodríguez-Hernández, Luis, Lara-Olivas, Jorge A., López-Valencia, Germán, Villalobos-Díaz, Rodolfo, Aragón-Arreola, Jorge F., Padilla-Leal, Karen E., García-Zazueta, Jesús Humberto, Camacho-Castro, Alfredo, Gómez-Amador, Juan L.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Tuberculum sellae meningiomas (TSM) account for 3–10% of intracranial meningiomas. Visual loss is the presenting symptom in up to 80% of cases. Surgical management poses a great challenge due to tumor proximity to neurovascular structures such as the optic nerve and the internal carotid artery (ICA); hence, there is controversy regarding the optimal approach. The aim of this study is to determine differences in visual outcomes between transcranial (TCA) and endoscopic endonasal (EEA) approaches. A retrospective study including 29 patients with TSM surgically treated by TCA or EEA between 2011 and 2023 in a single referral center was conducted. Pre-and post-operative neuro-ophthalmologic evaluations, focusing on visual acuity and campimetry, were evaluated. Sixteen (55.16%) patients were intervened through a TCA and the remaining 13 (44.84%) via an EEA. The lesions in each group were similar in terms of pre- operative volume (15.12 vs 12.9 cm3, p = 0.497) and neurovascular invasion (optic canal invasion 48.26 vs 41.37%, p = 0.664; ICA 44.81 vs 31.03%, p = 0.797). There were no significant differences in visual outcomes between both approaches; TCA presented an improvement of 5.18 points in visual fields (p = 0.140), whereas EEA had an improvement of 17.39 points in visual acuity (p = 0.114). EEA seems to offer greater improvement in visual acuity than TCA. However, the ideal approach should be individualized; taking into account the tumor’s volume and invasiveness, as well as the patient's visual complaints.
ISSN:2590-1397
2590-1397
DOI:10.1016/j.wnsx.2024.100319