Craniopharyngioma: Comparison Between Supra-orbital Versus Endonasal Keyhole Approaches
Craniopharyngiomas represent one of the most challenging brain tumors to treat. In recent years, minimally invasive keyhole approaches have been increasingly used to remove these sellar, suprasellar and parasellar lesions. Of these approaches, the two most commonly used are the extended endonasal transsphenoidal route and the supraorbital eyebrow craniotomy. Although both approaches may be appropriate for a given patient, in many cases one route offers a better opportunity for safe and maximal tumor removal. Based on our combined experience using the endonasal and supra-orbital approaches for craniopharyngiomas, the endonasal route is preferred for removal of most retrochiasmal craniopharyngiomas and those lesions that are predominantly sellar in location. In contrast, those tumors that are predominantly prechiasmal or with prominent lateral extensions (a minority of craniopharyngiomas), the supra-orbital route is recommended. In some complex tumors with both prechiasmal and retrochiasmal extensions, either route may be appropriate. An additional key factor is surgeon experience with these keyhole approaches and conventional approaches. Compared to conventional larger craniotomies, the major limitation of both the endonasal and supraorbital approaches is a narrow surgical corridor. The endonasal approach has the added challenges of restricted lateral access, a greater need for endoscopy as well as a more demanding skull base repair. Herein, we review in this chapter the use of the supraorbital and endonasal approaches and summarize tumor and patient characteristics that help determine the optimal surgical route.
KeywordsBone Flap Endonasal Approach Pericranial Flap Gross Total Removal Skull Base Reconstruction
The authors thank Dr Dennis Malkasian and Mr Josh Emerson for their artistic contribution.
- Beretta F, Andaluz N, Chalaala C, Bernucci C, Salud L, Zuccarello M (2010) Image-guided anatomical and morphometric study of supraorbital and transorbital minicraniotomies to the sellar and perisellar regions: comparison with standard techniques. J Neurosurg 113:975–981Google Scholar
- Couldwell WT, Weiss MH, Rabb C, Liu JK, Apfelbaum RI, Fukushima T (2004) Variations on the standard transsphenoidal approach to the sellar region, with emphasis on the extended approaches and parasellar approaches: surgical experience in 105 cases. Neurosurgery 55:539–547, discussion 547–550PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Dusick JR, Fatemi N, Mattozo C, McArthur D, Cohan P, Wang C, Swerdloff RS, Kelly DF (2008) Pituitary function after endonasal surgery for nonadenomatous parasellar tumors: Rathke’s cleft cysts, craniopharyngiomas, and meningiomas. Surg Neurol 70:482–490, discussion 490–491PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Garrè ML, Cama A (2007) Craniopharyngioma: modern concepts in pathogenesis and treatment. Curr Opin Pediatr 19(4):471–479Google Scholar
- Kassam AB, Gardner PA, Snyderman CH, Carrau RL, Mintz AH, Prevedello DM (2008a) Expanded endonasal approach, a fully endoscopic transnasal approach for the resection of midline suprasellar craniopharyngiomas: a new classification based on the infundibulum. J Neurosurg 108:715–728PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Perneczky A, Muller-Forell W, van Lindert E, Fries G (1999) Keyhole concept in neurosurgey: with endoscopic-assisted microneurosurgery and case studies. Thieme, New YorkGoogle Scholar