Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Extended endoscopic approaches for midline skull-base lesions

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Neurosurgical Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The endoscopic transsphenoidal approach has been reported in the literature as a useful tool to treat sellar and parasellar lesions. The endoscope permits a panoramic view instead of the narrow microscopic view, and it allows the inspection and removal of the lesions of sellar, parasellar, and suprasellar compartments by angled-lens endoscopes. On the basis of the experience gained with the use of the endoscope, we have performed extended endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal approach in 13 of 200 (total endoscopic transphenoidal approaches since September 1997) patients for the last 5 years. Extended endoscopic transsphenoidal approach was performed for three patients with pituitary adenoma, two patients with craniopharyngioma, one patient with metastatic lesion, one patient with anaplastic germinoma, two patients with chordoma, one patient with chondrosarcoma, one plasmocytoma, and two patients with tuberculum sella meningioma. Total removal of the tumor was achieved in nine patients and subtotal removal was achieved in four patients. Extended approaches are essential for reaching the area from lamina cribrosa to the cranio-cervical junction. Endoscopic approach permits reaching the lesion without brain retraction and with minimal neurovascular manipulation. The main problems are related to the hemorrhage control of intracranial vessels and to the closure of the dural and bony defects, with subsequent increased risk of postoperative cerebrospinal fluid leak, tensive pneumocephalus, and/or meningitis.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Arai H, Sato K, Okuda O, Miyajima M, Hishii M, Nakanishi H, Ishii H (2000) Transcranial transsphenoidal approach for tuberculum sellae meningiomas. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 142:751–757

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Cappabianca P, Cavallo LM, de Divitiis E (2004) Endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal surgery. Neurosurgery 55(4):933–940 Oct; discussion 940-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cavallo LM, Cappabianca P, Galzio R, Iaconetta G, de Divitiis E, Tschabitscher M (2005) Endoscopic transnasal approach to the cavernous sinus versus transcranial route: anatomic study. Neurosurgery 56(2 Suppl):379–389 Apr; discussion 379-89

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Cavallo LM, de Divitiis O, Aydin S, Messina A, Esposito F, Iaconetta G, Talat K, Cappabianca P, Tschabitscher M (2007) Extended endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal approach to the suprasellar area: anatomic considerations—part 1. Neurosurgery 61(3 Suppl):24–33 Sep; discussion 33-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cavallo LM, Messina A, Cappabianca P, Esposito F, de Divitiis E, Gardner P, Tschabitscher M (2005) Endoscopic endonasal surgery of the midline skull base: anatomical study and clinical considerations. Neurosurg Focus 19(1):E2 Jul 15

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cavallo LM, Messina A, Esposito F, de Divitiis O, Dal Fabbro M, de Divitiis E, Cappabianca P (2007) Skull base reconstruction in the extended endoscopic transsphenoidal approach for suprasellar lesions. J Neurosurg 107(4):713–720 Oct

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cavallo LM, Messina A, Gardner P, Esposito F, Kassam AB, Cappabianca P, de Divitiis E, Tschabitscher M (2005) Extended endoscopic endonasal approach to the pterygopalatine fossa: anatomical study and clinical considerations. Neurosurg Focus 19(1):E5 Jul 15

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cook SW, Smith Z, Kelly DF (2004) Endonasal transsphenoidal removal of tuberculum sellae meningiomas: technical note. Neurosurgery 55:239–246

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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 55:539–550

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. de Divitiis E, Cappabianca P, Cavallo LM, Esposito F, de Divitiis O, Messina A (2007) Extended endoscopic transsphenoidal approach for extrasellar craniopharyngiomas. Neurosurgery 61(5 Suppl 2):219–227 Nov; discussion 228

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. de Divitiis E, Cavallo LM, Cappabianca P, Esposito F (2007) Extended endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal approach for the removal of suprasellar tumors: Part 2. Neurosurgery 60(1):46–58 Jan; discussion 58-9

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. de Divitiis E, Cavallo LM, Esposito F, Stella L, Messina A (2007) Extended endoscopic transsphenoidal approach for tuberculum sellae meningiomas. Neurosurgery 61(5 Suppl 2):229–237 Nov; discussion 237-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. de Divitiis E, Esposito F, Cappabianca P, Cavallo LM, de Divitiis O (2008) Tuberculum sellae meningiomas: high route or low route? A series of 51 consecutive cases. Neurosurgery 62(3):556–563 Mar; discussion 556-63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Dehdashti AR, Gentili F (2007) Current state of the art in the diagnosis and surgical treatment of Cushing disease: early experience with a purely endoscopic endonasal technique. Neurosurg Focus 23(3):E9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Dusick JR, Esposito F, Kelly DF, Cohan P, DeSalles A, Becker DP, Martin NA (2005) The extended direct endonasal transsphenoidal approach for nonadenomatous suprasellar tumors. J Neurosurg 102(5):832–841 May

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Dusick JR, Esposito F, Mattozo CA, Chaloner C, McArthur DL, Kelly DF (2006) Endonasal transsphenoidal surgery: The patient’s perspective-survey results from 259 patients. Surg Neurol 65:332–342

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Frank G, Pasquini E (2006) Endoscopic endonasal cavernous sinus surgery, with special reference to pituitary adenomas. Front Horm Res 34:64–82

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Frank G, Pasquini E, Doglietto F, Mazzatenta D, Sciarretta V, Farneti G, Calbucci F (2006) The endoscopic extended transsphenoidal approach for craniopharyngiomas. Neurosurgery 59(1 Suppl 1):ONS75–ONS83 Jul; discussion ONS75-83

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Frank G, Pasquini E, Farneti G, Mazzatenta D, Sciarretta V, Grasso V, Faustini Fustini M (2006) The endoscopic versus the traditional approach in pituitary surgery. Neuroendocrinology 83(3-4):240–248

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Frank G, Sciarretta V, Calbucci F, Farneti G, Mazzatenta D, Pasquini E (2006) The endoscopic transnasal transsphenoidal approach for the treatment of cranial base chordomas and chondrosarcomas. Neurosurgery 59(1 Suppl 1):ONS50–ONS57 Jul; discussion ONS50-7

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Garcia AS, Rhoton AL Jr (2006) Speculum opening in transsphenoidal surgery. Neurosurgery 59(Suppl 1):ONS35–ONS40

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Goel A, Muzumdar D, Desai KI (2002) Tuberculum sellae meningioma: A report on management on the basis of a surgical experience with 70 patients. Neurosurgery 51:1358–1564

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hadad G, Bassagasteguy L, Carrau RL, Mataza JC, Kassam A, Snyderman CH, Mintz A (2006) A novel reconstructive technique after endoscopic expanded endonasal approaches: vascular pedicle nasoseptal flap. Laryngoscope 116(10):1882–1886 Oct

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Jho HD (2001) Endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery. J Neurooncol 54:187–195

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Jho HD, Carrau RL, McLaughlin MR, Somaza SC (1997) Endoscopic transsphenoidal resection of a large chordoma in the posterior fossa. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 139:343–347

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Jho HD, Ha HG (2004) Endoscopic endonasal skull base surgery: Part 1—the midline anterior fossa skull base. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 47:1–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kaptain GJ, Vincent DA, Sheehan JP, Laws ER Jr (2001) Transsphenoidal approaches for the extracapsular resection of midline suprasellar and anterior cranial base lesions. Neurosurgery 49:94–101

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Kassam A, Carrau RL, Snyderman CH, Gardner P, Mintz A (2005) Evolution of reconstructive techniques following endoscopic expanded endonasal approaches. Neurosurg Focus 19(1):E8 Jul 15

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kassam AB, Gardner P, Snyderman C, Mintz A, Carrau R (2005) Expanded endonasal approach: fully endoscopic, completely transnasal approach to the middle third of the clivus, petrous bone, middle cranial fossa, and infratemporal fossa. Neurosurg Focus 19(1):E6 Jul 15

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kassam A, Snyderman CH, Mintz A, Gardner P, Carrau RL (2005) Expanded endonasal approach: the rostrocaudal axis. Part I. Crista galli to the sella turcica. Neurosurg Focus 19(1):E3 Jul 15

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Kassam A, Snyderman CH, Mintz A, Gardner P, Carrau RL (2005) Expanded endonasal approach: the rostrocaudal axis. Part II. Posterior clinoids to the foramen magnum. Neurosurg Focus 19(1):E4 Jul 15

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Kassam A, Thomas AJ, Snyderman C, Carrau R, Gardner P, Mintz A, Kanaan H, Horowitz M, Pollack IF (2007) Fully endoscopic expanded endonasal approach treating skull base lesions in pediatric patients. J Neurosurg 106(2 Suppl):75–86 Feb

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Kato T, Sawamura Y, Abe H, Nagashima M (1998) Transsphenoidal-transtuberculum sellae approach for supradiaphragmatic tumors: Technical note. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 140:715–719

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Kim J, Choe I, Bak K, Kim C, Kim N, Jang Y (2000) Transsphenoidal supradiaphragmatic intradural approach: technical note. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 43:33–37

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Kitano M, Taneda M (2001) Extended transsphenoidal approach with submucosal posterior ethmoidectomy for parasellar tumors: technical note. J Neurosurg 94:999–1004

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Koc K, Anik I, Altintas O, Ceylan S (2008) Endoscopic optic nerve decompression for idiopathic intracranial hypertension in two cases. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 51(2):72–75 Apr

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Koc K, Anik I, Ozdamar D, Cabuk B, Keskin G, Ceylan S (2006) The learning curve in endoscopic pituitary surgery and our experience. Neurosurg Rev 29(4):298–305 Oct; discussion 305. Epub 2006 Aug 26. Erratum in: Neurosurg Rev. 2007 30(1):96, Jan

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Kouri JG, Chen MY, Watson JC, Oldfield EH (2000) Resection of suprasellar tumors by using a modified transsphenoidal approach. Report of four cases. J Neurosurg 92:1028–1035

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Laufer I, Anand VK, Schwartz TH (2007) Endoscopic, endonasal extended transsphenoidal, transplanum transtuberculum approach for resection of suprasellar lesions. J Neurosurg 106(3):400–406 Mar

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Snyderman CH, Kassam AB, Carrau R, Mintz A (2007) Endoscopic reconstruction of cranial base defects following endonasal skull base surgery. Skull Base 17(1):73–78 Feb

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Weiss MH (1987) Transnasal transsphenoidal approach. In: Apuzzo MLJ (ed) Surgery of the third ventricle. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, pp 476–494

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurosurgery, School of Medicine, Kocaeli University, Eski İstanbul Yolu 10. Km, Izmit, Kocaeli, Turkey

    Savas Ceylan, Kenan Koc & Ihsan Anik

Authors
  1. Savas Ceylan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kenan Koc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ihsan Anik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ihsan Anik.

Additional information

Comments

Luis A Borba, Curitiba, Brazil

I believe that this kind of approach may not be necessary in some cases; an example is the radical removal of plasmocytoma or anaplastic germinomas that could have an increased risk of CSF leakage in the post-RT period, which certainly will need an adjuvant RT or CT, increasing the risk of CSF leakage after the post-RT period.

− Case of chordoma: a MRI in coronal view can demonstrate the “advantage” of the approach, not the sagittal view.

− Case of invasive pituitary adenoma. I cannot see the advantage over the pure endonasal-assisted or not by endoscope, the false invasion of the cavernous sinus (Fig. 5) may be an issue of confusion.

− The meningioma cases: I believe that the first (Fig. 11a) case is a contraindication to the endoscopic procedure, because the tumor is encasing the basal arteries, and I am not surprised about the impossibility to remove the tumor. The second case (Fig. 11c) may be a good candidate.

During the last decade, the utilization of endoscopic approach to sellar and parasellar lesions has increased. The high quality of illumination and the fish-eye view are the greatest advantage of the endoscope. A 30° or 45° scope allows the visualization of corners unreachable by microscopic view. Despite this very important progress, the pure endoscopic technique has several limitations including the 2D view, the utilization of long and unstable instruments, and, in some situations, a one-hand dissection. The endoscope is very welcome in neurosurgery, but it is not a substitute for microsurgical techniques. The need to push new techniques can be, in the future, responsible for its death.

In the present paper and in the literature, the utilization of pure endoscopic approach does not prove to be superior to directly endonasal approach combining microsurgery and assisted endoscope-associated or not to minimal maxillary osteotomes.

The management of frontal base meningiomas through endonasal approach is a new and brave surgical technique. In my opinion, the removal of meningioma through the nose, makes a simple surgical procedure a more dangerous and unsafe method.

I believe that anterior approaches (endoscopic or not) are reserved to midline lesions (medial to both ICA), extradural, with or without intradural extension. A purely intradural lesion must be removed through an intradural approach.

What is new does not mean that it is better; many times it is more dangerous and unsafe.

Robert Reisch, Zurich, Switzerland

In this paper, Ceylan et al. describe their experiences with endoscopic transsphenoidal approaches treating midline skull-base lesions. Extended approaches were performed for 13 of 200 endoscopically treated patients during a period of 5 years.

Endoscopic techniques offer several advantages in transsphenoidal surgery. Advantages in visualization are the increased light intensity in the deep-seated surgical field and the clear representation of patho-anatomical details. The extended viewing angle of endoscopes enables surgeons to observe hidden parts of the surgical field. Advantage in surgical manipulation is the unhindered maneuverability of the micro-instruments. Without using a nasal speculum, surgical dissection is not impeded and the instruments are freely mobile allowing unrestricted approach to the clearly visualized structures.

According to these clear benefits, I obviously recommend the use of endoscopes in transsphenoidal surgery, especially for pituitary tumors and extradural clival lesions of the central skull base. However, in treating intradural lesions, some main problems should be critically discussed:

1. The endoscopic extended transsphenoidal way offers manifest-approach-related traumatization of the nasal cavity. Removal of the middle and superior turbinates, creation of a mucosal septal flap, removal of the posterior septum and wide sphenotomy often cause postoperative nasal fetor and anosmia with long-term problems among patients. In comparison, a supraorbital keyhole craniotomy and transcranial dissection presents a minimal invasive way, approaching similar intracranial lesions.

2. Maneuverability of the instruments through the transnasal way is limited; the often-used “pulling” of the tumor can never be compared with safe microsurgical dissection. Resection of a 4-cm-large meningioma with incorporation of main cerebral vessels is for me a clear contraindication for transsphenoidal surgery.

3. After tumor removal, reconstruction of the cranial base is mandatory and very problematic. The authors describe this problem accurately reporting a CSF leak in 38.46% (five of 13) of patients.

I strongly believe that extradural lesions should be removed via an extradural transsphenoidal way and intradural lesions via an intradural way using minimally invasive endoscopic techniques.

References:

Jho et al. (2004): Minim Invas Neurosurg 47:1-8

Kassam et al. (2005): Neurosurg Focus 19:1-10

Gardner et al. (2008): J Neurosurg 108:395-400

De Divitiis et al. (2006): Neurosurgery 61: 229-238

Hae-Dong Jho, Pittsburgh, US

Ceylan et al. reported their experiences with endoscopic endonasal approaches for midline skull-base lesions that are located beyond the pituitary fossa. Over 5 years, they operated on 13 patients; three with pituitary adenomas, two with craniopharyngiomas, two with meningiomas, three with chordomas or a chondrosarcoma, one with metastasis, one plasmocytoma, and another with a germinoma. They claimed that nine patients had total tumor removal and four, subtotal. One patient died of postoperative hemorrhage. Five out of thirteen patients developed postoperative CSF leakage of which four were treated with lumbar drainage and one required surgical repair. They used a two-nostril technique with two operating surgeons. They used intraoperative neuromonitoring for cranial nerves and intraoperative Doppler for carotid artery localizations. Their patient follow-up was 2–44 months.

I congratulate their successful transition from microscopic transsphenoidal surgery to endoscopic endonasal surgery over the past 10 years. Certainly, there is a steep learning curve for neurosurgeons to perform endoscopic endonasal surgery because neurosurgeons usually do not have formal endoscopic endonasal training during their residency period. Although neurosurgeons perform endoscopic ventricular procedures, endoscopic techniques for endonasal approaches are quite different from endoscopic ventricular surgery. Although the number of cases they have is small and their follow-up period is short, I believe that this paper deserves to be published in order to have readers understand the technical difficulties, potential problems, and intrinsic complications. The endoscope is simply another surgical tool that surgeons can utilize to achieve surgical goals.

The endonasal route is simply another surgical corridor that can be adopted if necessary. However, when surgeons try to use new tools or attempt to perform new techniques, technical difficulties and associated complications are inevitable.

For surgical indications, I agree with them that very select cases of meningiomas at the tuberculum sella, planum sphenoidale, and olfactory groove can be approached with endoscopic endonasal routes. Although I perform endoscopic endonasal approaches for those meningiomas occasionally, I prefer to perform endoscopic transcranial approaches with a mini-incision for meningiomas. Meningiomas usually have a wide tumor base and a wider involvement of the dura mater. Thus, a transcranial route provides better exposure to the whole spectrum of the tumor and its attachment. Occasionally, I still perform endoscopic endonasal approaches for menigiomas, particularly when total resection is certainly feasible in MR findings, or if main mass removal of the tumor alone is sufficient for patients, particularly for very elderly patients. Otherwise, I prefer to perform transcranial endoscopic approaches for meningomas.

Indications for endoscopic endonasal approaches for craniopharyngiomas are also limited to particular cases like the case described in this paper. Whether craniopharyngiomas should be approached through transcranial routes or endonasal routes will be determined by tumor location and its relationships with surrounding tissues. Most pituitary adenomas that require surgery can be approached through endonasal routes. One exception would be a tumor that extends to the middle cranial fossa. Pituitary adenomas that are involving the cavernous sinus can be approached with endonasal routes. However, I have been cautious in approaching the cavernous sinus for pituitary adenomas because radiosurgery is an available treatment option. Surgical attempts also carry higher cranial nerve morbidities. Endoscopic endonasal approaches will be excellent indications for petrous tip cholesterol granulomas, clival chordomas, or chondrosarcomas. Even if total tumor removal is not achieved for clival chordomas or chondrosarcomas, repeated endonasal endoscopic operations in intervals can prolong patient survival quite long following the initial operation and radiation treatment.

S. Ceylan et al., also mention the use of intraoperative neuromonitoring, intraoperative Doppler scanning, and other surgical tools. Although they did not mention it, an image-guiding tool is another tool neurosurgeons are fond of using for complex skull-base surgery. However, we have to balance between what is and is not necessary. Simplifications versus safety have to be judiciously guided. Authors used a two-nostril technique. I prefer to do a one-nostril technique. While the authors like to have two operating surgeons, I prefer one surgeon with endoscope anchored to the endoscope holder. However, the preservation of the nasal anatomy is more important. Surgical approach itself in the nasal cavity should not destroy the normal nasal and paranasal anatomy unnecessarily. As the authors described, skull-base reconstruction is still a main hurdle for endoscopic endonasal approaches to the intracranial pathologies. Although various surgical glues are introduced, they are not yet sufficient to seal the skull base. Various surgical techniques for skull-base reconstructions are still not good enough to prevent postoperative CSF leakage. Although the authors used lumbar drainage in five cases, I personally do not like to use lumbar drainage. When a patient leaks CSF significantly, I prefer to surgically repair it immediately. That hastens the patient’s recovery, shortens their hospital stay, and reduces the chance of developing other complications such as meningitis, pneumonia, or venous thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism.

Again, I praise the authors that they share their experiences with others. I have no doubt that they will continually improve their surgical skills and patient outcomes.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ceylan, S., Koc, K. & Anik, I. Extended endoscopic approaches for midline skull-base lesions. Neurosurg Rev 32, 309–319 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-009-0201-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-009-0201-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation