Feasibility of endoscopic endonasal resection of intrinsic third ventricular craniopharyngioma in adults.
Craniopharyngioma
Endoscopic endonasal approach
Intraventricular
Surgery
Third ventricle
Journal
Neurosurgical review
ISSN: 1437-2320
Titre abrégé: Neurosurg Rev
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 7908181
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2022
Aug 2022
Historique:
received:
12
01
2022
accepted:
02
05
2022
revised:
20
04
2022
pubmed:
22
5
2022
medline:
6
8
2022
entrez:
21
5
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Intrinsic third ventricular craniopharyngiomas (IVCs) are usually considered as a contraindication of endoscopic endonasal approach (EEA). The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and feasibility of EEA for the resection of IVCs based on MRI topographical diagnosis and surgical findings. We reviewed the data of 22 patients who were diagnosed to be IVCs according to five MRI criteria and underwent surgery through EEA. Sixteen IVCs were resected using endoscopic endonasal infrachiasmatic corridor, five IVCs by using endoscopic endonasal suprachiasmatic trans-lamina terminalis corridor, and one IVC by using both the infrachiasmatic and suprachiasmatic corridors. During the operation, all the 22 cases were verified to be IVCs. Gross total resection was achieved in 21 (95.5%) patients. After surgery, visual improvement was observed in 14 (63.6%) patients, no change in 6 (27.3%) patients, and some deterioration in 2 (9.1%) patients. An improvement in intellectual ability was observed in nine (40.9%) patients, no change in twelve (54.5%) patients, and some deterioration in one (4.5%) patient. Fifteen of the 22 patients (68.2%) developed new endocrinological deficit. One postoperative cerebral spinal fluid leakage occurred. EEA can be used as a safe and efficacious approach for the radical resection of IVCs. The combination of the five MRI criteria may serve as an accurate preoperative diagnostic tool to define the topographical relationships between craniopharyngiomas and the third ventricle. The endoscopic transnasal view from below has the advantage of clarifying the relationship between tumors and the third ventricle floor.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35597836
doi: 10.1007/s10143-022-01807-2
pii: 10.1007/s10143-022-01807-2
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1-13Subventions
Organisme : Capital's Funds for Health Improvement and Research
ID : 2020-4-1077
Organisme : Beijing Municipal Science & Technology Commission
ID : Z19110700660000
Organisme : Beijing Hospitals Authority Clinical Medicine Development of Special Funding Support
ID : XMLX202108
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Behari S, Banerji D, Mishra A, Sharma S, Sharma S, Chhabra DK, Jain VK (2003) Intrinsic third ventricular craniopharyngiomas: report on six cases and a review of the literature. Surg Neurol 60:245–252; discussion 252–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0090-3019(03)00132-0
Campbell PG, McGettigan B, Luginbuhl A, Yadla S, Rosen M, Evans JJ (2010) Endocrinological and ophthalmological consequences of an initial endonasal endoscopic approach for resection of craniopharyngiomas. Neurosurg Focus 28:E8. https://doi.org/10.3171/2010.1.FOCUS09292
doi: 10.3171/2010.1.FOCUS09292
pubmed: 20367365
Cao L, Wu W, Kang J, Qiao H, Yang X, Bai J, Zhu H, Zhang Y, Gui S (2021) Expanded transsphenoidal trans-lamina terminalis approach to tumors extending into the third ventricle: technique notes and a single institute experience. Front Oncol 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2021.761281
Cavallo LM, Frank G, Cappabianca P, Solari D, Mazzatenta D, Villa A, Zoli M, D’Enza AI, Esposito F, Pasquini E (2014) The endoscopic endonasal approach for the management of craniopharyngiomas: a series of 103 patients. J Neurosurg 121:100–113. https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.3.JNS131521
doi: 10.3171/2014.3.JNS131521
pubmed: 24785324
de Divitiis E, Cappabianca P, Cavallo LM, Esposito F, de Divitiis O, Messina A (2007) Extended endoscopic transsphenoidal approach for extrasellar craniopharyngiomas. Neurosurgery 61:219–227; discussion 228. https://doi.org/10.1227/01.neu.0000303220.55393.73
Dho YS, Kim YH, Se YB, Han DH, Kim JH, Park CK, Wang KC, Kim DG (2018) Endoscopic endonasal approach for craniopharyngioma: the importance of the relationship between pituitary stalk and tumor. J Neurosurg 129:611–619. https://doi.org/10.3171/2017.4.JNS162143
doi: 10.3171/2017.4.JNS162143
pubmed: 28960155
Elliott RE, Jane JA Jr, Wisoff JH (2011) Surgical management of craniopharyngiomas in children: meta-analysis and comparison of transcranial and transsphenoidal approaches. Neurosurgery 69:630–643; discussion 643. https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0b013e31821a872d
Fernandez-Miranda JC, Gardner PA, Snyderman CH, Devaney KO, Strojan P, Suarez C, Genden EM, Rinaldo A, Ferlito A (2012) Craniopharyngioma: a pathologic, clinical, and surgical review. Head Neck 34:1036–1044. https://doi.org/10.1002/hed.21771
doi: 10.1002/hed.21771
pubmed: 21584897
Forbes JA, Ordonez-Rubiano EG, Tomasiewicz HC, Banu MA, Younus I, Dobri GA, Phillips CD, Kacker A, Cisse B, Anand VK, Schwartz TH (2018) Endonasal endoscopic transsphenoidal resection of intrinsic third ventricular craniopharyngioma: surgical results. J Neurosurg 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3171/2018.5.JNS18198
Frank G, Pasquini E, Doglietto F, Mazzatenta D, Sciarretta V, Farneti G, Calbucci F (2006) The endoscopic extended transsphenoidal approach for craniopharyngiomas. Neurosurgery 59:ONS75–83; discussion ONS75–83. https://doi.org/10.1227/01.Neu.0000219897.98238.A3
Gardner PA, Kassam AB, Snyderman CH, Carrau RL, Mintz AH, Grahovac S, Stefko S (2008) Outcomes following endoscopic, expanded endonasal resection of suprasellar craniopharyngiomas: a case series. J Neurosurg 109:6–16. https://doi.org/10.3171/JNS/2008/109/7/0006
doi: 10.3171/JNS/2008/109/7/0006
pubmed: 18590427
Gu Y, Zhang X, Hu F, Yu Y, Xie T, Sun C, Li W (2015) Suprachiasmatic translamina terminalis corridor used in endoscopic endonasal approach for resecting third ventricular craniopharyngioma. J Neurosurg 122:1166–1172. https://doi.org/10.3171/2015.1.JNS132842
doi: 10.3171/2015.1.JNS132842
pubmed: 25723303
Hardesty DA, Montaser AS, Beer-Furlan A, Carrau RL, Prevedello DM (2018) Limits of endoscopic endonasal surgery for III ventricle craniopharyngiomas. J Neurosurg Sci 62:310–321. https://doi.org/10.23736/s0390-5616.18.04331-x
doi: 10.23736/s0390-5616.18.04331-x
pubmed: 29378389
Jane JA Jr, Kiehna E, Payne SC, Early SV, Laws ER Jr (2010) Early outcomes of endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery for adult craniopharyngiomas. Neurosurg Focus 28:E9. https://doi.org/10.3171/2010.1.Focus09319
doi: 10.3171/2010.1.Focus09319
pubmed: 20367523
Jung TY, Jung S, Jang WY, Moon KS, Kim IY, Kang SS (2012) Operative outcomes and adjuvant treatment of purely third ventricle craniopharyngioma after a transcallosal approach. Br J Neurosurg 26:355–360. https://doi.org/10.3109/02688697.2011.631615
doi: 10.3109/02688697.2011.631615
pubmed: 22103565
Kassam AB, Gardner PA, Snyderman CH, Carrau RL, Mintz AH, Prevedello DM (2008) Expanded endonasal approach, a fully endoscopic transnasal approach for the resection of midline suprasellar craniopharyngiomas: a new classification based on the infundibulum. J Neurosurg 108:715–728. https://doi.org/10.3171/JNS/2008/108/4/0715
doi: 10.3171/JNS/2008/108/4/0715
pubmed: 18377251
Koutourousiou M, Fernandez-Miranda JC, Wang EW, Snyderman CH, Gardner PA (2018) The limits of transsellar/transtuberculum surgery for craniopharyngioma. J Neurosurg Sci 62:301–309. https://doi.org/10.23736/S0390-5616.18.04376-X
doi: 10.23736/S0390-5616.18.04376-X
pubmed: 29480694
Koutourousiou M, Gardner PA, Fernandez-Miranda JC, Tyler-Kabara EC, Wang EW, Snyderman CH (2013) Endoscopic endonasal surgery for craniopharyngiomas: surgical outcome in 64 patients. J Neurosurg 119:1194–1207. https://doi.org/10.3171/2013.6.Jns122259
doi: 10.3171/2013.6.Jns122259
pubmed: 23909243
Lei C, Chuzhong L, Chunhui L, Peng Z, Jiwei B, Xinsheng W, Yazhuo Z, Songbai G (2021) Approach selection and outcomes of craniopharyngioma resection: a single-institute study. Neurosurg Rev 44:1737–1746. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-020-01370-8
doi: 10.1007/s10143-020-01370-8
pubmed: 32827306
Leng LZ, Greenfield JP, Souweidane MM, Anand VK, Schwartz TH (2012) Endoscopic, endonasal resection of craniopharyngiomas: analysis of outcome including extent of resection, cerebrospinal fluid leak, return to preoperative productivity, and body mass index. Neurosurgery 70:110–123; discussion 123–114. https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0b013e31822e8ffc
Liu JK, Sevak IA, Carmel PW, Eloy JA (2016) Microscopic versus endoscopic approaches for craniopharyngiomas: choosing the optimal surgical corridor for maximizing extent of resection and complication avoidance using a personalized, tailored approach. Neurosurg Focus 41:E5. https://doi.org/10.3171/2016.9.FOCUS16284
doi: 10.3171/2016.9.FOCUS16284
pubmed: 27903113
Maira G, Anile C, Albanese A, Cabezas D, Pardi F, Vignati A (2004) The role of transsphenoidal surgery in the treatment of craniopharyngiomas. J Neurosurg 100:445–451. https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.2004.100.3.0445
doi: 10.3171/jns.2004.100.3.0445
pubmed: 15035280
Nishioka H, Fukuhara N, Yamaguchi-Okada M, Yamada S (2016) Endoscopic endonasal surgery for purely intrathird ventricle craniopharyngioma. World Neurosurg 91:266–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2016.04.042
doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2016.04.042
pubmed: 27108029
Omay SB, Almeida JP, Chen YN, Shetty SR, Liang B, Ni S, Anand VK, Schwartz TH (2018) Is the chiasm-pituitary corridor size important for achieving gross-total resection during endonasal endoscopic resection of craniopharyngiomas? J Neurosurg 129:642–647. https://doi.org/10.3171/2017.6.JNS163188
doi: 10.3171/2017.6.JNS163188
pubmed: 29171802
Pascual JM, Gonzalez-Llanos F, Barrios L, Roda JM (2004) Intraventricular craniopharyngiomas: topographical classification and surgical approach selection based on an extensive overview. Acta Neurochir 146:785–802. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-004-0295-3
doi: 10.1007/s00701-004-0295-3
pubmed: 15254801
Pascual JM, Prieto R, Carrasco R, Barrios L (2013) Displacement of mammillary bodies by craniopharyngiomas involving the third ventricle: surgical-MRI correlation and use in topographical diagnosis. J Neurosurg 119:381–405. https://doi.org/10.3171/2013.1.Jns111722
doi: 10.3171/2013.1.Jns111722
pubmed: 23540270
Prieto R, Barrios L, Pascual JM (2022) Strictly third ventricle craniopharyngiomas: pathological verification, anatomo-clinical characterization and surgical results from a comprehensive overview of 245 cases. Neurosurg Rev 45:375–394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-021-01615-0
doi: 10.1007/s10143-021-01615-0
pubmed: 34448081
Qiao N, Yang X, Li C, Ma G, Kang J, Liu C, Cao L, Zhang Y, Gui S (2021) The predictive value of intraoperative visual evoked potential for visual outcome after extended endoscopic endonasal surgery for adult craniopharyngioma. J Neurosurg 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3171/2020.10.JNS202779
Samii M, Tatagiba M (1997) Surgical management of craniopharyngiomas: a review. Neurol Med Chir 37:141–149. https://doi.org/10.2176/nmc.37.141
doi: 10.2176/nmc.37.141
Shibuya M, Takayasu M, Suzuki Y, Saito K, Sugita K (1996) Bifrontal basal interhemispheric approach to craniopharyngioma resection with or without division of the anterior communicating artery. J Neurosurg 84:951–956. https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.1996.84.6.0951
doi: 10.3171/jns.1996.84.6.0951
pubmed: 8847589
Teramoto S, Bertalanffy H (2016) Predicting the necessity of anterior communicating artery division in the bifrontal basal interhemispheric approach. Acta Neurochir 158:1701–1708. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-016-2884-3
doi: 10.1007/s00701-016-2884-3
pubmed: 27334737
Yu T, Sun X, Ren X, Cui X, Wang J, Lin S (2014) Intraventricular craniopharyngiomas: surgical management and outcome analyses in 24 cases. World Neurosurg 82:1209–1215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2014.06.015
doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2014.06.015
pubmed: 24937597