Comparative analysis of outcomes following craniotomy and expanded endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal resection of craniopharyngioma and related tumors: A single-institution study

Sunil Jeswani, Miriam A Nuno, Arthur Wu, Vivien Bonert, John D. Carmichael, Keith L. Black, Ray Chu, Wesley King, Adam N. Mamelak

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

33 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective Craniopharyngiomas and similar midline suprasellar tumors have traditionally been resected via transcranial approaches. More recently, expanded endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal approaches have gained interest. Surgeons have advocated for both approaches, and at present there is no consensus whether one approach is superior to the other. The authors therefore compared surgical outcomes between craniotomy and endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal surgery (EETS) for suprasellar tumors treated at their institution. Methods A retrospective review of patients undergoing resection of suprasellar lesions at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center between 2000 and 2013 was performed. Patients harboring suspected craniopharyngioma were selected for extensive review. Other pathologies or predominantly intrasellar masses were excluded. Cases were separated into 2 groups, based on the surgical approach taken. One group underwent EETS and the other cohort underwent craniotomy. Patient demographic data, presenting symptoms, and previous therapies were tabulated. Preoperative and postoperative tumor volume was calculated for each case based on MRI. Student t-test and the chi-square test were used to evaluate differences in patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and outcomes between the 2 cohorts. To assess for selection bias, 3 neurosurgeons who did not perform the surgeries reviewed the preoperative imaging studies and clinical data for each patient in blinded fashion and indicated his/her preferred approach. These data were subject to concordance analysis using Cohen's kappa test to determine if factors other than surgeon preference influenced the choice of surgical approach. Results Complete data were available for 53 surgeries; 19 cases were treated via EETS, and 34 were treated via craniotomy. Patient demographic data, preoperative symptoms, and tumor characteristics were similar between the 2 cohorts, except that fewer operations for recurrent tumor were observed in the craniotomy cohort compared with EETS (17.6% vs 42.1%, p = 0.05). The extent of resection was similar between the 2 groups (85.6% EETS vs 90.7% craniotomy, p = 0.77). An increased rate of cranial nerve injury was noted in the craniotomy group (0% EETS vs 23.5% craniotomy, p = 0.04). Postoperative CSF leak rate was higher in the EETS group (26.3% EETS vs 0% craniotomy, p = 0.004). The progression-free survival curves (log-rank p = 0.99) and recurrence rates (21.1% EETS vs 23.5% craniotomy, p = 1.00) were similar between the 2 groups. Concordance analysis of cases reviewed by 3 neurosurgeons indicated that individual surgeon preference was the only factor that determined surgical approach (kappa coefficient-0.039, p = 0.762) Conclusions Surgical outcomes were similar for tumors resected via craniotomy or EETS, except that more CSF leaks occurred in the EETS cohort, whereas more neurological injuries occurred in the craniotomy cohort. Surgical approach appears to mostly reflect surgeon preference rather than specific tumor characteristics. These data support the view that EETS is a viable alternative to craniotomy, providing a similar extent of resection with less neurological injury.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)627-638
Number of pages12
JournalJournal of Neurosurgery
Volume124
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2016
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Craniopharyngioma
Craniotomy
Neoplasms
Demography
Cranial Nerve Injuries
Selection Bias
Wounds and Injuries
Chi-Square Distribution
Tumor Burden

Keywords

  • Complications
  • Craniopharyngioma
  • Endoscopic
  • Outcomes
  • Skull base
  • Suprasellar
  • Transsphenoidal

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Medicine(all)
  • Clinical Neurology

Cite this

Comparative analysis of outcomes following craniotomy and expanded endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal resection of craniopharyngioma and related tumors : A single-institution study. / Jeswani, Sunil; Nuno, Miriam A; Wu, Arthur; Bonert, Vivien; Carmichael, John D.; Black, Keith L.; Chu, Ray; King, Wesley; Mamelak, Adam N.

In: Journal of Neurosurgery, Vol. 124, No. 3, 01.03.2016, p. 627-638.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Jeswani, Sunil ; Nuno, Miriam A ; Wu, Arthur ; Bonert, Vivien ; Carmichael, John D. ; Black, Keith L. ; Chu, Ray ; King, Wesley ; Mamelak, Adam N. / Comparative analysis of outcomes following craniotomy and expanded endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal resection of craniopharyngioma and related tumors : A single-institution study. In: Journal of Neurosurgery. 2016 ; Vol. 124, No. 3. pp. 627-638.
@article{aa654d2d6c284238812f50d67e946215,
title = "Comparative analysis of outcomes following craniotomy and expanded endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal resection of craniopharyngioma and related tumors: A single-institution study",
abstract = "Objective Craniopharyngiomas and similar midline suprasellar tumors have traditionally been resected via transcranial approaches. More recently, expanded endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal approaches have gained interest. Surgeons have advocated for both approaches, and at present there is no consensus whether one approach is superior to the other. The authors therefore compared surgical outcomes between craniotomy and endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal surgery (EETS) for suprasellar tumors treated at their institution. Methods A retrospective review of patients undergoing resection of suprasellar lesions at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center between 2000 and 2013 was performed. Patients harboring suspected craniopharyngioma were selected for extensive review. Other pathologies or predominantly intrasellar masses were excluded. Cases were separated into 2 groups, based on the surgical approach taken. One group underwent EETS and the other cohort underwent craniotomy. Patient demographic data, presenting symptoms, and previous therapies were tabulated. Preoperative and postoperative tumor volume was calculated for each case based on MRI. Student t-test and the chi-square test were used to evaluate differences in patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and outcomes between the 2 cohorts. To assess for selection bias, 3 neurosurgeons who did not perform the surgeries reviewed the preoperative imaging studies and clinical data for each patient in blinded fashion and indicated his/her preferred approach. These data were subject to concordance analysis using Cohen's kappa test to determine if factors other than surgeon preference influenced the choice of surgical approach. Results Complete data were available for 53 surgeries; 19 cases were treated via EETS, and 34 were treated via craniotomy. Patient demographic data, preoperative symptoms, and tumor characteristics were similar between the 2 cohorts, except that fewer operations for recurrent tumor were observed in the craniotomy cohort compared with EETS (17.6{\%} vs 42.1{\%}, p = 0.05). The extent of resection was similar between the 2 groups (85.6{\%} EETS vs 90.7{\%} craniotomy, p = 0.77). An increased rate of cranial nerve injury was noted in the craniotomy group (0{\%} EETS vs 23.5{\%} craniotomy, p = 0.04). Postoperative CSF leak rate was higher in the EETS group (26.3{\%} EETS vs 0{\%} craniotomy, p = 0.004). The progression-free survival curves (log-rank p = 0.99) and recurrence rates (21.1{\%} EETS vs 23.5{\%} craniotomy, p = 1.00) were similar between the 2 groups. Concordance analysis of cases reviewed by 3 neurosurgeons indicated that individual surgeon preference was the only factor that determined surgical approach (kappa coefficient-0.039, p = 0.762) Conclusions Surgical outcomes were similar for tumors resected via craniotomy or EETS, except that more CSF leaks occurred in the EETS cohort, whereas more neurological injuries occurred in the craniotomy cohort. Surgical approach appears to mostly reflect surgeon preference rather than specific tumor characteristics. These data support the view that EETS is a viable alternative to craniotomy, providing a similar extent of resection with less neurological injury.",
keywords = "Complications, Craniopharyngioma, Endoscopic, Outcomes, Skull base, Suprasellar, Transsphenoidal",
author = "Sunil Jeswani and Nuno, {Miriam A} and Arthur Wu and Vivien Bonert and Carmichael, {John D.} and Black, {Keith L.} and Ray Chu and Wesley King and Mamelak, {Adam N.}",
year = "2016",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.3171/2015.3.JNS142254",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "124",
pages = "627--638",
journal = "Journal of Neurosurgery",
issn = "0022-3085",
publisher = "American Association of Neurological Surgeons",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparative analysis of outcomes following craniotomy and expanded endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal resection of craniopharyngioma and related tumors

T2 - A single-institution study

AU - Jeswani, Sunil

AU - Nuno, Miriam A

AU - Wu, Arthur

AU - Bonert, Vivien

AU - Carmichael, John D.

AU - Black, Keith L.

AU - Chu, Ray

AU - King, Wesley

AU - Mamelak, Adam N.

PY - 2016/3/1

Y1 - 2016/3/1

N2 - Objective Craniopharyngiomas and similar midline suprasellar tumors have traditionally been resected via transcranial approaches. More recently, expanded endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal approaches have gained interest. Surgeons have advocated for both approaches, and at present there is no consensus whether one approach is superior to the other. The authors therefore compared surgical outcomes between craniotomy and endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal surgery (EETS) for suprasellar tumors treated at their institution. Methods A retrospective review of patients undergoing resection of suprasellar lesions at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center between 2000 and 2013 was performed. Patients harboring suspected craniopharyngioma were selected for extensive review. Other pathologies or predominantly intrasellar masses were excluded. Cases were separated into 2 groups, based on the surgical approach taken. One group underwent EETS and the other cohort underwent craniotomy. Patient demographic data, presenting symptoms, and previous therapies were tabulated. Preoperative and postoperative tumor volume was calculated for each case based on MRI. Student t-test and the chi-square test were used to evaluate differences in patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and outcomes between the 2 cohorts. To assess for selection bias, 3 neurosurgeons who did not perform the surgeries reviewed the preoperative imaging studies and clinical data for each patient in blinded fashion and indicated his/her preferred approach. These data were subject to concordance analysis using Cohen's kappa test to determine if factors other than surgeon preference influenced the choice of surgical approach. Results Complete data were available for 53 surgeries; 19 cases were treated via EETS, and 34 were treated via craniotomy. Patient demographic data, preoperative symptoms, and tumor characteristics were similar between the 2 cohorts, except that fewer operations for recurrent tumor were observed in the craniotomy cohort compared with EETS (17.6% vs 42.1%, p = 0.05). The extent of resection was similar between the 2 groups (85.6% EETS vs 90.7% craniotomy, p = 0.77). An increased rate of cranial nerve injury was noted in the craniotomy group (0% EETS vs 23.5% craniotomy, p = 0.04). Postoperative CSF leak rate was higher in the EETS group (26.3% EETS vs 0% craniotomy, p = 0.004). The progression-free survival curves (log-rank p = 0.99) and recurrence rates (21.1% EETS vs 23.5% craniotomy, p = 1.00) were similar between the 2 groups. Concordance analysis of cases reviewed by 3 neurosurgeons indicated that individual surgeon preference was the only factor that determined surgical approach (kappa coefficient-0.039, p = 0.762) Conclusions Surgical outcomes were similar for tumors resected via craniotomy or EETS, except that more CSF leaks occurred in the EETS cohort, whereas more neurological injuries occurred in the craniotomy cohort. Surgical approach appears to mostly reflect surgeon preference rather than specific tumor characteristics. These data support the view that EETS is a viable alternative to craniotomy, providing a similar extent of resection with less neurological injury.

AB - Objective Craniopharyngiomas and similar midline suprasellar tumors have traditionally been resected via transcranial approaches. More recently, expanded endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal approaches have gained interest. Surgeons have advocated for both approaches, and at present there is no consensus whether one approach is superior to the other. The authors therefore compared surgical outcomes between craniotomy and endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal surgery (EETS) for suprasellar tumors treated at their institution. Methods A retrospective review of patients undergoing resection of suprasellar lesions at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center between 2000 and 2013 was performed. Patients harboring suspected craniopharyngioma were selected for extensive review. Other pathologies or predominantly intrasellar masses were excluded. Cases were separated into 2 groups, based on the surgical approach taken. One group underwent EETS and the other cohort underwent craniotomy. Patient demographic data, presenting symptoms, and previous therapies were tabulated. Preoperative and postoperative tumor volume was calculated for each case based on MRI. Student t-test and the chi-square test were used to evaluate differences in patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and outcomes between the 2 cohorts. To assess for selection bias, 3 neurosurgeons who did not perform the surgeries reviewed the preoperative imaging studies and clinical data for each patient in blinded fashion and indicated his/her preferred approach. These data were subject to concordance analysis using Cohen's kappa test to determine if factors other than surgeon preference influenced the choice of surgical approach. Results Complete data were available for 53 surgeries; 19 cases were treated via EETS, and 34 were treated via craniotomy. Patient demographic data, preoperative symptoms, and tumor characteristics were similar between the 2 cohorts, except that fewer operations for recurrent tumor were observed in the craniotomy cohort compared with EETS (17.6% vs 42.1%, p = 0.05). The extent of resection was similar between the 2 groups (85.6% EETS vs 90.7% craniotomy, p = 0.77). An increased rate of cranial nerve injury was noted in the craniotomy group (0% EETS vs 23.5% craniotomy, p = 0.04). Postoperative CSF leak rate was higher in the EETS group (26.3% EETS vs 0% craniotomy, p = 0.004). The progression-free survival curves (log-rank p = 0.99) and recurrence rates (21.1% EETS vs 23.5% craniotomy, p = 1.00) were similar between the 2 groups. Concordance analysis of cases reviewed by 3 neurosurgeons indicated that individual surgeon preference was the only factor that determined surgical approach (kappa coefficient-0.039, p = 0.762) Conclusions Surgical outcomes were similar for tumors resected via craniotomy or EETS, except that more CSF leaks occurred in the EETS cohort, whereas more neurological injuries occurred in the craniotomy cohort. Surgical approach appears to mostly reflect surgeon preference rather than specific tumor characteristics. These data support the view that EETS is a viable alternative to craniotomy, providing a similar extent of resection with less neurological injury.

KW - Complications

KW - Craniopharyngioma

KW - Endoscopic

KW - Outcomes

KW - Skull base

KW - Suprasellar

KW - Transsphenoidal

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84975153642&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84975153642&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3171/2015.3.JNS142254

DO - 10.3171/2015.3.JNS142254

M3 - Article

C2 - 26361276

AN - SCOPUS:84975153642

VL - 124

SP - 627

EP - 638

JO - Journal of Neurosurgery

JF - Journal of Neurosurgery

SN - 0022-3085

IS - 3

ER -