Combined Hybrid Microscopic and Endoscopic Transsphenoidal Surgery: Anatomy, Instrumentation, and Technique

  • David S. BaskinEmail author
  • Robert A. Scranton


Surgical management of pituitary tumors has evolved considerably since the first report by Victor Horsley in the early 1900s. Made largely possible by advancing technology, various approaches have been used including a lateral rhinotomy, sublabial, transcranial, and transnasal to name a few. Presently the transnasal approach is the most popular and has evolved to rely heavily upon the endoscope for visualization though historically it was the operating microscope that made the operation possible. The merits of endoscopic-transnasal versus microscopic-transnasal have been debated much like the clip-versus-coil debate for treatment of intracranial aneurysms. Similar to the vascular debate, no one instrument or technique is superior in all regards. This chapter describes the utility of a hybrid approach combining both endoscopic and microsurgical techniques which are used as individual circumstances dictate. As no single surgical approach is perfect, surgeons should not limit themselves to only one technique or approach, but rather use all options available.


Transnasal Endoscopic Microsurgical Hybrid approach 



This work was supported by the Donna and Kenneth R. Peak Foundation, The Kenneth R. Peak Brain and Pituitary Treatment Center at Houston Methodist Hospital, The Taub Foundation, The Blanche Green Estate Fund of the Pauline Sterne Wolff Memorial Foundation, The Verelan Foundation, The John S. Dunn Foundation, The Houston Methodist Hospital Foundation, The Kelly Kicking Cancer Foundation, The American Brain Tumor Association, the senior author’s referring physicians who have allowed us to gain knowledge of the many nuances of this surgery, and the many patients and families who have been impacted by the devastating effects of brain and pituitary tumors. We also thank Nyla Ismail, Ph.D. and Megan Fulin for editorial support and assistance.

Supplementary material

Video 11.1

Endoscopic approach (MP4 191,611 kB)

Video 11.2

Entry into the sella (MP4 166,365 kB)

Video 11.3

Tumor resection (MP4 78,854 kB)

Video 11.4

Use of lumbar drain (MP4 191,859 kB)

Video 11.5

Skull base reconstruction (MP4 62,875 kB)


  1. 1.
    Horsley V. Address in surgery: delivered at the seventy-fourth annual meeting of the British Medical Association. BMJ. 1906;2(2382):411.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schloffer H. Further report on the patient operated upon for a pituitary tumor. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 1907;20:1075–8.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Liu JK, Das K, Weiss MH, Laws ER, Couldwell WT. The history and evolution of transsphenoidal surgery. J Neurosurg. 2002;95(6):1083–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gandhi CD, Post KD. Historical movements in transsphenoidal surgery. Neurosurg Focus. 2001;11(4):E7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Landolt AM. History of pituitary surgery from the technical aspect. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2001;12(1):37–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Prevedello DM, Doglietto F, Jane JA, Jagannathan J, Han J, Laws ER. History of endoscopic skull base surgery: its evolution and current reality. J Neurosurg. 2007;107(1):206–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hirsch O. Endonasal method of removal of hypophyseal tumors with report of two successful cases. JAMA. 1910;55(9):772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cushing H. Intracranial tumours: notes upon a series of two thousand verified cases with surgical-mortality percentages pertaining thereto. JAMA. 1933;100(4):284.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rosegay H. Cushing’s legacy to transsphenoidal surgery. J Neurosurg. 1981;54(4):448–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jelliffe WR. The pituitary body and its disorders. Clinical states produced by disorders of the hypophysis cerebri. J Nerv Ment Dis. 1912;39(12):848.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Patel SK, Husain Q, Eloy JA, Couldwell WT, Liu JK. Norman Dott, Gerard Guiot, and Jules Hardy: key players in the resurrection and preservation of transsphenoidal surgery. Neurosurg Focus. 2012;33(2):E6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Griffith HB, Veerapen R. A direct transnasal approach to the sphenoid sinus. Technical note. J Neurosurg. 1987;66(1):140–2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Christian E, Harris B, Wrobel B, Zada G. Endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal surgery: implementation of an operative and perioperative checklist. Neurosurg Focus. 2014;37(4):E1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Laws ER, Wong JM, Smith TR, de Los Reyes K, Aglio LS, Thorne AJ, et al. A checklist for endonasal transsphenoidal anterior skull base surgery. J Neurosurg. 2016;124(6):1634–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Buyuklu F, Cakmak O, Hizal E, Donmez FY. Outfracture of the inferior turbinate: a computed tomography study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;123(6):1704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Moss WJ, Lemieux AJ, Alexander TH. Is inferior turbinate lateralization effective? Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015 Jul 17;136(5):710e–1e.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Legler U. Lateroposition of the lower concha--a simple procedure to improve nasal air passage. Z Laryngol Rhinol Otol. 1970;49(6):386–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Scheithauer MO. Surgery of the turbinates and “empty nose” syndrome. GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2011 Apr 27;9:Doc03.PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Laws ER. Vascular complications of transsphenoidal surgery. Pituitary. 2000;2(2):163–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Solari D, Chiaramonte C, Di Somma A, Orabona GD, de Notaris M, Angileri FF, et al. Endoscopic anatomy of the skull base explored through the nose. World Neurosurg. 2014;82(6 Suppl):S164–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tubbs RS, Griessenauer C, Loukas M, Cohen-Gadol AA. The circular sinus: an anatomic study with neurosurgical and neurointerventional applications. World Neurosurg. 2013;82(3–4):e475–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Aquini MG, Marrone AC, Schneider FL. Intercavernous venous communications in the human skull base. Skull Base Surg. 1994;4(3):145–50.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ross DA, Norman D, Wilson CB. Radiologic characteristics and results of surgical management of Rathkeʼs cysts in 43 patients. Neurosurgery. 1992;30(2):173.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kleinschmidt-DeMasters BK, Lillehei KO, Stears JC. The pathologic, surgical, and MR spectrum of Rathke cleft cysts. Surg Neurol. 1995;44(1):19–26. discussion 26-7CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hsu HY, Piva A, Sadun AA. Devastating complications from alcohol cauterization of recurrent Rathke cleft cyst. Case report. J Neurosurg. 2004;100(6):1087–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Liebelt BD, Huang M, Baskin DS. Sellar floor reconstruction with the medpor implant versus autologous bone after transnasal transsphenoidal surgery: outcome in 200 consecutive patients. World Neurosurg. 2015;84(2):240–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of NeurosurgeryHouston Methodist Neurological InstituteHoustonUSA
  2. 2.Kenneth R. Peak Brain and Pituitary Tumor Treatment Center, Department of Neurosurgery, Houston Methodist Neurological InstituteHoustonUSA
  3. 3.Kenneth R. Peak Brain and Pituitary Tumor Treatment Center and Department of Neurosurgery, Houston Methodist Neurological InstituteHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations