Download PDF
J Neurol Surg B Skull Base 2021; 82(06): 615-623
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1714112
Original Article

Impact of the Extent of Microsurgical Resection in Sphenopetro-clival Meningiomas Trough a Multistaged Approach: A Volumetric Analysis

Rafael Martínez-Pérez 
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States
2   Division of Skull Base and Vascular Neurosurgery, Institute of Neurosurgery Dr. Asenjo, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile
,
Asterios Tsimpas
3   Department of Surgery, Section of Neurosurgery, Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, United States
,
Mario Ganau
4   Department of Neurosurgery, Toronto Western Hospital, Toronto, Canada
,
Jorge M. Mura
2   Division of Skull Base and Vascular Neurosurgery, Institute of Neurosurgery Dr. Asenjo, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile
5   Department of Neurosurgery, Clínica las Condes, Santiago, Chile
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective Sphenopetroclival meningiomas (SPCMs) represent a challenge for surgical treatment. The authors used an objective volumetric analysis to assess the effect of the grade of resection and different surgical strategies that may affect the outcome of this tumors.

Methods Over a period of 4 years, patients with SPCMs were treated using a middle versus posterior fossa approach, or a two-stage surgery combining both approaches, based on the tumor location in relation to the petrous ridge and tumor volume. Retrospectively, all cases were analyzed with regard to tumor volume, extent of resection (EOR), functional outcome, and complications.

Results Twenty-seven patients with SPCMs met the inclusion criteria, and the mean follow-up was 24.8 months. Eleven patients underwent a two-stage surgery, while 16 patients had their SPCMs resected via a single craniotomy. Mean EOR was 87.6% and gross total resection was achieved in 48% of patients. Patients with greater EOR had better functional outcomes (r = 0.81, p < 0.01). Greater EOR was not accompanied by a significant increase in surgical complications. There was a trend toward lower postoperative volumes and better EOR with our two-stage approach (2.2 vs. 3.2 cm3, p = 0.09; and 94.1 vs. 91.2%, p = 0.49, respectively), without an increase in the rate of complications (18.7 vs. 18.2%, p = 0.5).

Conclusion Staging of the surgical resection of larger tumors may lead to greater EOR, and this strategy should be considered for larger tumors.

Keywords

petroclival - meningioma - volumetric - extent of resection - outcome - combined approach

Disclosure

The authors of this manuscript do not report any conflict of interest. The work was presented to the investigational review board of our institution, which waved the need for informed consent in view of the retrospective design of the study and the application of strict patient privacy regulations operating in our center.




Publication History

Received: 12 January 2020

Accepted: 22 May 2020

Article published online:
19 November 2020

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Wiemels J, Wrensch M, Claus EB. Epidemiology and etiology of meningioma. J Neurooncol 2010; 99 (03) 307-314
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Yamashita J, Handa H, Iwaki K, Abe M. Recurrence of intracranial meningiomas, with special reference to radiotherapy. Surg Neurol 1980; 14 (01) 33-40
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Sassun TE, Ruggeri AG, Delfini R. True petroclival meningiomas: proposal of classification and role of the combined supra-infratentorial presigmoid retrolabyrinthine approach. World Neurosurg 2016; 96: 111-123
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Diluna ML, Bulsara KR. Surgery for petroclival meningiomas: a comprehensive review of outcomes in the skull base surgery era. Skull Base 2010; 20 (05) 337-342
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Kawase T, Shiobara R, Toya S. Anterior transpetrosal-transtentorial approach for sphenopetroclival meningiomas: surgical method and results in 10 patients. Neurosurgery 1991; 28 (06) 869-875 , discussion 875–876
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Simpson D. The recurrence of intracranial meningiomas after surgical treatment. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1957; 20 (01) 22-39
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Di Maio S, Ramanathan D, Garcia-Lopez R. et al. Evolution and future of skull base surgery: the paradigm of skull base meningiomas. World Neurosurg 2012; 78 (3-4): 260-275
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Kanaly CW, Mehta AI, Ding D. et al. A novel, reproducible, and objective method for volumetric magnetic resonance imaging assessment of enhancing glioblastoma. J Neurosurg 2014; 121 (03) 536-542
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Shi WM, Wildrick DM, Sawaya R. Volumetric measurement of brain tumors from MR imaging. J Neurooncol 1998; 37 (01) 87-93
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Chang V, Narang J, Schultz L. et al. Computer-aided volumetric analysis as a sensitive tool for the management of incidental meningiomas. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2012; 154 (04) 589-597 , discussion 597
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Gozal YM, Alzhrani G, Abou-Al-Shaar H, Azab MA, Walsh MT, Couldwell WT. Outcomes of decompressive surgery for cavernous sinus meningiomas: long-term follow-up in 50 patients. J Neurosurg 2019; 132 (02) 380-387
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Park C-K, Jung H-W, Kim JE, Paek SH, Kim DG. The selection of the optimal therapeutic strategy for petroclival meningiomas. Surg Neurol 2006; 66 (02) 160-165 , discussion 165–166
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Morisako H, Goto T, Ohata K. Petroclival meningiomas resected via a combined transpetrosal approach: surgical outcomes in 60 cases and a new scoring system for clinical evaluation. J Neurosurg 2015; 122 (02) 373-380
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Yoneoka Y, Fujii Y, Tanaka R. Growth of incidental meningiomas. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2000; 142 (05) 507-511
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Hashimoto N, Rabo CS, Okita Y. et al. Slower growth of skull base meningiomas compared with non-skull base meningiomas based on volumetric and biological studies. J Neurosurg 2012; 116 (03) 574-580
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Al-Mefty O, Fox JL, Smith RR. Petrosal approach for petroclival meningiomas. Neurosurgery 1988; 22 (03) 510-517
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Martínez-Pérez R, Silveira-Bertazzo G, Rangel GG. et al. The historical perspective in approaches to the spheno-petro-clival meningiomas. Neurosurg Rev 2019; 1-14
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Martínez-Pérez R, Hernández-Álvarez V, Maturana R, Mura JM. The extradural minipterional pretemporal approach for the treatment of spheno-petro-clival meningiomas. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2019; 161 (12) 2577-2582
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Patibandla MR, Lee C-C, Tata A, Addagada GC, Sheehan JP. Stereotactic radiosurgery for WHO grade I posterior fossa meningiomas: long-term outcomes with volumetric evaluation. J Neurosurg 2018; 129 (05) 1249-1259
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Azar M, Kazemi F, Chanideh I, Amirjamshidi A, Amini E, Ghanavati P. Gamma Knife radiosurgery in sphenopetroclival meningiomas: preliminary experience at the Iran Gamma Knife center. World Neurosurg 2016; 93: 39-43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Starke RM, Przybylowski CJ, Sugoto M. et al. Gamma Knife radiosurgery of large skull base meningiomas. J Neurosurg 2015; 122 (02) 363-372
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Flannery TJ, Kano H, Lunsford LD. et al. Long-term control of petroclival meningiomas through radiosurgery. J Neurosurg 2010; 112 (05) 957-964
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Kim JW, Jung H-W, Kim YH. et al. Petroclival meningiomas: long-term outcomes of multimodal treatments and management strategies based on 30 years of experience at a single institution. J Neurosurg 2019; 132 (06) 1675-1682
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Van Havenbergh T, Carvalho G, Tatagiba M, Plets C, Samii M. Natural history of petroclival meningiomas. Neurosurgery 2003; 52 (01) 55-62 , discussion 62–64
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Jung HW, Yoo H, Paek SH, Choi KS. Long-term outcome and growth rate of subtotally resected petroclival meningiomas: experience with 38 cases. Neurosurgery 2000; 46 (03) 567-574 , discussion 574–575
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Couldwell WT, Fukushima T, Giannotta SL, Weiss MH. Petroclival meningiomas: surgical experience in 109 cases. J Neurosurg 1996; 84 (01) 20-28
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Sekhar LN, Swamy NK, Jaiswal V, Rubinstein E, Hirsch Jr WE, Wright DC. Surgical excision of meningiomas involving the clivus: preoperative and intraoperative features as predictors of postoperative functional deterioration. J Neurosurg 1994; 81 (06) 860-868
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Fatima N, Meola A, Pollom E, Chang SD, Soltys S. Stereotactic radiosurgery for large benign intracranial tumors. World Neurosurg 2020; 134: e172-e180
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Graffeo CS, Link MJ, Stafford SL, Parney IF, Foote RL, Pollock BE. Risk of internal carotid artery stenosis or occlusion after single-fraction radiosurgery for benign parasellar tumors. J Neurosurg 2019; (e-pub ahead of print). DOI: 10.3171/2019.8.JNS191285.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Abdel Aziz KM, Sanan A, van Loveren HR, Tew Jr JM, Keller JT, Pensak ML. Petroclival meningiomas: predictive parameters for transpetrosal approaches. Neurosurgery 2000; 47 (01) 139-150 , discussion 150–152
    PubMedGoogle Scholar