J Neurol Surg B Skull Base 2022; 83(03): 254-264
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1716671
Original Article

Minimally Invasive Approaches to Anterior Skull Base Meningiomas

Scott C. Seaman
1   Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa, United States
,
Muhammad S. Ali
1   Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa, United States
,
Anthony Marincovich
1   Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa, United States
,
Luyuan Li
1   Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa, United States
,
Jarrett E. Walsh
2   Department of Otolaryngology, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa, United States
,
Jeremy D. W. Greenlee
1   Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa, United States
› Author Affiliations
Funding None.

Abstract

Objective Anterior skull base meningiomas include olfactory groove, planum sphenoidale, and tuberculum sellae lesions. Traditionally, standard craniotomy approaches have been used to access meningiomas in these locations. More recently, minimally invasive techniques including supraorbital and endonasal endoscopic approaches have gained favor; however there are limited published series comparing the use of these two techniques for these meningiomas. Using our patent database, we identified patients who underwent these two approaches, and conducted a retrospective chart review to compare outcomes between these two techniques.

Methods A total of 32 patients who underwent minimally invasive approaches were identified: 20 supraorbital and 11 endoscopic endonasal. Radiographic images, presenting complaints and outcomes, were analyzed retrospectively. The safety of each approach was evaluated.

Results The mean extent of resection through a supraorbital approach was significantly greater than that of the endoscopic endonasal approach, 88.1 vs. 57.9%, respectively (p = 0.016). Overall, preoperative visual acuity and anopsia deficits were more frequent in the endonasal group that persisted postoperatively (visual acuity: p = 0.004; anopsia: p = 0.011). No major complications including cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leaks or wound-related complications were identified in the supraorbital craniotomy group, while the endonasal group had two CSF leaks requiring lumbar drain placement. Length of stay was shorter in the supraorbital group (3.4 vs. 6.1 days, p < 0.001).

Conclusion Anterior skull base meningiomas can be successfully managed by both supraorbital and endoscopic endonasal approaches. Both approaches provide excellent direct access to tumor in carefully selected patients and are safe and efficient, but patient factors and symptoms should dictate the approach selected.

Note

This work has not been previously published or presented at the time of submission.




Publication History

Received: 30 July 2020

Accepted: 04 August 2020

Article published online:
29 December 2020

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 
  • References

  • 1 Rami Almefty GFH, Ossama Al-Mefty. Meningioma In: Winn HR. ed. Youmans & Winn Neurological Surgery. 7th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2017: 1107-1132
  • 2 Abbassy M, Woodard TD, Sindwani R, Recinos PF. An overview of anterior skull base meningiomas and the endoscopic endonasal approach. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2016; 49 (01) 141-152
  • 3 Nanda A, Bir SC, Maiti TK, Konar SK, Missios S, Guthikonda B. Relevance of Simpson grading system and recurrence-free survival after surgery for World Health Organization Grade I meningioma. J Neurosurg 2017; 126 (01) 201-211
  • 4 Muskens IS, Briceno V, Ouwehand TL. et al. The endoscopic endonasal approach is not superior to the microscopic transcranial approach for anterior skull base meningiomas-a meta-analysis. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2018; 160 (01) 59-75
  • 5 Nakamura M, Struck M, Roser F, Vorkapic P, Samii M. Olfactory groove meningiomas: clinical outcome and recurrence rates after tumor removal through the frontolateral and bifrontal approach. Neurosurgery 2007; 60 (05) 844-852 , discussion 844–852
  • 6 Ormond DR, Hadjipanayis CG. The supraorbital keyhole craniotomy through an eyebrow incision: its origins and evolution. Minim Invasive Surg 2013; 2013: 296469
  • 7 Gardner PA, Kassam AB, Thomas A. et al. Endoscopic endonasal resection of anterior cranial base meningiomas. Neurosurgery 2008; 63 (01) 36-52 , discussion 52–54
  • 8 Gazzeri R, Nishiyama Y, Teo C. Endoscopic supraorbital eyebrow approach for the surgical treatment of extraaxial and intraaxial tumors. Neurosurg Focus 2014; 37 (04) E20
  • 9 Casiano RR. Endonasal resection of the anterior cranial base. In: Snyderman CH, Gardner PA. eds. Skull Base Surgery. Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer; 2015: 173-183
  • 10 Matsushima T, Kobayashi S, Inoue T, Rhoton AS, Vlasak AL, Oliveira E. Albert L. Rhoton Jr., MD: his philosophy and education of neurosurgeons. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo) 2018; 58 (07) 279-289
  • 11 Andrews RJ, Bringas JR. A review of brain retraction and recommendations for minimizing intraoperative brain injury. Neurosurgery 1993; 33 (06) 1052-1063 , discussion 1063–1064
  • 12 Dehdashti AR, Ganna A, Witterick I, Gentili F. Expanded endoscopic endonasal approach for anterior cranial base and suprasellar lesions: indications and limitations. Neurosurgery 2009; 64 (04) 677-687 , discussion 687–689
  • 13 Boari N, Spina A, Giudice L, Gorgoni F, Bailo M, Mortini P. Fronto-orbitozygomatic approach: functional and cosmetic outcomes in a series of 169 patients. J Neurosurg 2018; 128 (02) 466-474
  • 14 Reisch R, Marcus HJ, Hugelshofer M, Koechlin NO, Stadie A, Kockro RA. Patients' cosmetic satisfaction, pain, and functional outcomes after supraorbital craniotomy through an eyebrow incision. J Neurosurg 2014; 121 (03) 730-734
  • 15 Banu MA, Mehta A, Ottenhausen M. et al. Endoscope-assisted endonasal versus supraorbital keyhole resection of olfactory groove meningiomas: comparison and combination of 2 minimally invasive approaches. J Neurosurg 2016; 124 (03) 605-620
  • 16 Lin YJ, Chen KT, Lee CC. et al. Anterior skull base tumor resection by transciliary supraorbital keyhole craniotomy: a single institutional experience. World Neurosurg 2018; 111: e863-e870
  • 17 Lucas JW, Zada G. Endoscopic endonasal and keyhole surgery for the management of skull base meningiomas. Neurosurg Clin N Am 2016; 27 (02) 207-214
  • 18 Cai M, Hou B, Luo L, Zhang B, Guo Y. Trans-eyebrow supraorbital keyhole approach to tuberculum sellae meningiomas: a series of 30 cases with long-term visual outcomes and recurrence rates. J Neurooncol 2019; 142 (03) 545-555
  • 19 Iacoangeli M, Nocchi N, Nasi D. et al. Minimally invasive supraorbital key-hole approach for the treatment of anterior cranial fossa meningiomas. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo) 2016; 56 (04) 180-185
  • 20 Borghei-Razavi H, Truong HQ, Fernandes-Cabral DT. et al. Minimally invasive approaches for anterior skull base meningiomas: supraorbital eyebrow, endoscopic endonasal, or a combination of both? anatomic study, limitations, and surgical application. World Neurosurg 2018; 112: e666-e674
  • 21 Hayhurst C, Teo C. Tuberculum sella meningioma. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2011; 44 (04) 953-963 , viii–ix
  • 22 Youngerman BE, Banu MA, Gerges MM. et al. Endoscopic endonasal approach for suprasellar meningiomas: introduction of a new scoring system to predict extent of resection and assist in case selection with long-term outcome data. J Neurosurg 2020; 135 (01) 113-125
  • 23 Zoli M, Guaraldi F, Pasquini E, Frank G, Mazzatenta D. The Endoscopic endonasal management of anterior skull base meningiomas. J Neurol Surg B Skull Base 2018; 79 (Suppl. 04) S300-S310
  • 24 Kshettry VR, Elshazly K, Evans JJ. Endoscopic transnasal surgery for planum and tuberculum sella meningiomas: decision-making, technique and outcomes. CNS Oncol 2016; 5 (04) 211-222
  • 25 Ottenhausen M, Rumalla K, Alalade AF. et al. Decision-making algorithm for minimally invasive approaches to anterior skull base meningiomas. Neurosurg Focus 2018; 44 (04) E7
  • 26 Dlouhy BJ, Madhavan K, Clinger JD. et al. Elevated body mass index and risk of postoperative CSF leak following transsphenoidal surgery. J Neurosurg 2012; 116 (06) 1311-1317
  • 27 Younus I, Gerges MM, Uribe-Cardenas R. et al. How long is the tail end of the learning curve? Results from 1000 consecutive endoscopic endonasal skull base cases following the initial 200 cases. J Neurosurg 2020; 134 (03) 750-760
  • 28 Soudry E, Psaltis AJ, Lee KH, Vaezafshar R, Nayak JV, Hwang PH. Complications associated with the pedicled nasoseptal flap for skull base reconstruction. Laryngoscope 2015; 125 (01) 80-85
  • 29 Lavigne P, Faden DL, Wang EW, Snyderman CH. Complications of nasoseptal flap reconstruction: a systematic review. J Neurol Surg B Skull Base 2018; 79 (Suppl. 04) S291-S299
  • 30 Wengier A, Ram Z, Warshavsky A, Margalit N, Fliss DM, Abergel A. Endoscopic skull base reconstruction with the nasoseptal flap: complications and risk factors. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2019; 276 (09) 2491-2498
  • 31 Jalessi M, Jahanbakhshi A, Amini E, Kamrava SK, Farhadi M. Impact of nasoseptal flap elevation on sinonasal quality of life in endoscopic endonasal approach to pituitary adenomas. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2016; 273 (05) 1199-1205
  • 32 Liu JK, Silva NA, Sevak IA, Eloy JA. Transbasal versus endoscopic endonasal versus combined approaches for olfactory groove meningiomas: importance of approach selection. Neurosurg Focus 2018; 44 (04) E8