Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Safety of endoscopic endonasal biopsy for the pituitary stalk-hypothalamic lesions

  • Published:
Pituitary Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The indications for and the optimal biopsy approach in pituitary stalk-hypothalamic (PsH) lesions are controversial. Biopsies through an endoscopic endonasal approach (EEA) for PsH lesions have often been considered to cause the infundibulo-tuberal syndrome. The purpose of this study was to analyze the surgical and endocrinological safety of EEA biopsies for PsH lesions.

Methods

A total of 39 consecutive patients who underwent an EEA biopsy between June 2011 and August 2020 in a single institute were retrospectively analyzed. The ophthalmological and endocrinological outcomes were assessed before and after surgery.

Results

PsH lesions were confirmed to be diverse pathological diagnoses, ranging from lymphocytic hypophysitis to diffuse midline glioma, and the most common pathologic diagnosis was a germinoma (18 patients, 46.2%). No patients developed visual deterioration after the biopsy. In patients without preoperative panhypopituitarism, 13 out of 28 patients (46.4%) developed new anterior pituitary hormonal deficiencies after the biopsy. When the tissue was collected from the stalk, the endocrinological deterioration rate was 100% (6 of 6 patients), while the rate was 31.8% (7 of 22 patients) when tissue could be harvested from an extra-stalk lesion. The rate of newly developed permanent diabetes insipidus after surgery was 40.9% (9 of 22 patients). The median surgery time was 125 min, and there was no postoperative CSF leakage or infections noted.

Conclusions

An EEA biopsy for PsH lesions is a safe and efficient surgical method unless the tissue is collected from the stalk.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Code availability

Not applicable.

References

  1. Hamilton BE, Salzman KL, Osborn AG (2007) Anatomic and pathologic spectrum of pituitary infundibulum lesions. Am J Roentgenol 188(3):W223–W232. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.05.2027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Jinguji S, Nishiyama K, Yoshimura J, Yoneoka Y, Harada A, Sano M et al (2013) Endoscopic biopsies of lesions associated with a thickened pituitary stalk. Acta Neurochir 155(1):119–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-012-1543-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Turcu AF, Erickson BJ, Lin E, Guadalix S, Schwartz K, Scheithauer BW et al (2013) Pituitary stalk lesions: The Mayo Clinic experience. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 98(5):1812–1818. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2012-4171

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Jian F, Bian L, Sun S, Yang J, Chen X, Chen Y et al (2014) Surgical biopsies in patients with central diabetes insipidus and thickened pituitary stalks. Endocrine 47(1):325–335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12020-014-0184-3

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Catford S, Wang YY, Wong R (2016) Pituitary stalk lesions: systematic review and clinical guidance. Clin Endocrinol 85(4):507–521. https://doi.org/10.1111/cen.13058

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Todeschi J, Chibbaro S, Clavier J-B, Lhermitte B, Goichot B, Proust F (2016) An unusual pituitary stalk lesion: What is the place of surgery? Neurochirurgie 62(6):339–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuchi.2016.08.002

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kinoshita Y, Yamasaki F, Tominaga A, Usui S, Arita K, Sakoguchi T et al (2017) Transsphenoidal posterior pituitary lobe biopsy in patients with neurohypophysial lesions. World Neurosurg 99:543–547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2016.12.080

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Carrasco-Moro R, Castro-Dufourny I, Prieto R, Pascual JM (2018) Transphenoidal surgery: the optimal approach to chordoid gliomas of the third ventricle? J Korean Neurosurg Soc 61(6):774–776. https://doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2017.0221

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Komotar RJ, Starke RM, Raper DMS, Anand VK, Schwartz TH (2012) Endoscopic endonasal compared with microscopic transsphenoidal and open transcranial resection of giant pituitary adenomas. Pituitary 15(2):150–159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11102-011-0359-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Koutourousiou M, Gardner PA, Fernandez-Miranda JC, Paluzzi A, Wang EW, Snyderman CH (2013) Endoscopic endonasal surgery for giant pituitary adenomas: advantages and limitations. J Neurosurg 118(3):621–631. https://doi.org/10.3171/2012.11.jns121190

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kim JH, Lee JH, Lee JH, Hong AR, Kim YJ, Kim YH (2018) Endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery outcomes in 331 nonfunctioning pituitary adenoma cases after a single surgeon learning curve. World Neurosurg 109:e409–e416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2017.09.194

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kim Y-H, Kang H, Dho Y-S, Hwang K, Joo J-D, Kim YH (2021) Multi-layer onlay graft using hydroxyapatite cement placement without cerebrospinal fluid diversion for endoscopic skull base reconstruction. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 64(4):619–630. https://doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2020.0231

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Czernichow P, Garel C, Léger J (2000) Thickened pituitary stalk on magnetic resonance imaging in children with central diabetes insipidus. Horm Res Paediatr 53(3):61–64. https://doi.org/10.1159/000023536

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Lee JY, Park JE, Shim WH, Jung SC, Choi CG, Kim SJ et al (2017) Joint approach based on clinical and imaging features to distinguish non-neoplastic from neoplastic pituitary stalk lesions. PLoS ONE 12(11):e0187989. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0187989

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Kang J-M, Ha J, Hong EK, Ju HY, Park BK, Shin S-H et al (2019) A nationwide, population-based epidemiologic study of childhood brain tumors in korea, 2005–2014: a comparison with United States Data. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 28(2):409–416. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.epi-18-0634

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Wong TT, Ho DM, Chang KP, Yen SH, Guo WY, Chang FC et al (2005) Primary pediatric brain tumors: statistics of Taipei VGH, Taiwan (1975–2004). Cancer 104(10):2156–2167. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.21430

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Rupp D, Molitch M (2008) Pituitary stalk lesions. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes 15(4):339–345. https://doi.org/10.1097/MED.0b013e3283050844

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study is supported and funded by Seoul National University Hospital (Grant No. 0520200030, to Y. H. Kim).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurosurgery, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 03080, Republic of Korea

    Ho Kang, Kyung-Min Kim, Min-Sung Kim, Chul-Kee Park & Yong Hwy Kim

  2. Devision of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 03080, Republic of Korea

    Jung Hee Kim

  3. Department of Neurosurgery, Pituitary Center, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 03080, Republic of Korea

    Jung Hee Kim & Yong Hwy Kim

Authors
  1. Ho Kang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kyung-Min Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Min-Sung Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jung Hee Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Chul-Kee Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yong Hwy Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization: YHK; Methodology: HK, JHK, YHK; Formal analysis and investigation: HK, K-MK; Writing-original draft preparation: HK; Writing-review and editing: M-SK, JHK, YHK, C-KP; Funding acquisition: YHK; Supervision: C-KP, JHK, YHK.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yong Hwy Kim.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Ethical approval

This retrospective chart review study involving human participants was in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki 1964 and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Approval was granted by the Institutional Review Board of authors’ institutions (No. 1910-127-1072).

Consent to participate

The requirement for written informed consent was waived because of the retrospective design of this study by the Institutional Review Board of Seoul National University Hospital.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kang, H., Kim, KM., Kim, MS. et al. Safety of endoscopic endonasal biopsy for the pituitary stalk-hypothalamic lesions. Pituitary 25, 143–151 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11102-021-01181-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11102-021-01181-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation