Atormac
briv
Neurology India
menu-bar5 Open access journal indexed with Index Medicus
  Users online: 12452  
 Home | Login 
About Editorial board Articlesmenu-bullet NSI Publicationsmenu-bullet Search Instructions Online Submission Subscribe Videos Etcetera Contact
  Navigate Here 
 Search
 
  
 Resource Links
  »  Similar in PUBMED
 »Related articles
  »  Article in PDF (2,786 KB)
  »  Citation Manager
  »  Access Statistics
  »  Reader Comments
  »  Email Alert *
  »  Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this Article
 »  Abstract
 » Methods
 » Results
 » Discussion
 » Conclusions
 »  References
 »  Article Figures
 »  Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed430    
    Printed12    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded23    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 


 
Table of Contents    
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 69  |  Issue : 6  |  Page : 1592-1600

Surgical Management of Tuberculum Sellae Meningioma: Our Experience and Review of the Literature


1 Global Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
2 Global Hospital; Nanavati Super Specialty Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Date of Submission25-Jun-2020
Date of Decision15-Sep-2020
Date of Acceptance23-Dec-2020
Date of Web Publication23-Dec-2021

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Suresh K Sankhla
Department of Neurosurgery, Room no. 118, 1st Floor OPD, Global Hospital, 35, Dr. E. Borges Road, Parel, Mumbai - 400 012, Maharashtra
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0028-3886.333529

Rights and Permissions

 » Abstract 


Background: Tuberculum sellae (TS) meningiomas are benign lesions that produce neurological deficits through a mass effect on vital neurovascular structures. The treatment of choice is surgical removal with the ultimate goal to improve vision and achieve total tumor removal.
Objective: We analyzed clinical features, tumor characteristics, and surgical approaches in 62 consecutive patients with TS meningiomas to identify factors influencing the postoperative outcome.
Methods: The authors reviewed the medical records of all patients of TS meningiomas who underwent surgery at our institute between 2005 and 2018. Pre- and postoperative clinical data, including the operative findings, of these patients were analyzed.
Results: Sixty-two patients who underwent surgery for removal of TSM, transcranial (TCA) in 38, and endoscopic endonasal (EEA) in 24, were identified. Gross total resection was performed in 84% and 87.5% patients in the TCA and EEA groups, respectively. A significantly higher rate of visual improvement was observed in the EEA group as compared to TCA (96% versus 79%). Visual worsening after surgery was greater with TCA than EEA (21% versus 4%). Fourteen (37%) patients in the TCA group experienced different postoperative complications, and CSF leak was the main complication in the EEA group.
Conclusions: TCA and EEA are both associated with higher rates of GTR and visual improvement without compromising the safety of the procedure. An optimal outcome, however, depends on the careful selection of cases based on the tumor location and morphology, and the surgeon's familiarity with the surgical approach.


Keywords: Endoscopic endonasal surgery, meningioma, tuberculum sellae
Key Message: Tumor features including the size, extension, consistency, and vascular relationship are the most important factors for consideration in the selection of an optimal surgical approach for meningiomas of tuberculum sellae.


How to cite this article:
Sankhla SK, Jayashankar N, Khan MA, Khan GM. Surgical Management of Tuberculum Sellae Meningioma: Our Experience and Review of the Literature. Neurol India 2021;69:1592-600

How to cite this URL:
Sankhla SK, Jayashankar N, Khan MA, Khan GM. Surgical Management of Tuberculum Sellae Meningioma: Our Experience and Review of the Literature. Neurol India [serial online] 2021 [cited 2022 Jan 18];69:1592-600. Available from: https://www.neurologyindia.com/text.asp?2021/69/6/1592/333529




Tuberculum sellae (TS) meningiomas are a distinct subgroup of the suprasellar meningiomas that constitute approximately 5%–10% of all intracranial meningiomas.[1] These tumors arise from the dura of the TS, and tend to grow in the prechiasmatic and/or subchiasmatic spaces by displacing the optic nerves superiorly and laterally. Although majority of patients present with headaches, nearly 67%–77% TS meningiomas invade the optic canals and cause significant visual impairment by compressing the optic nerves and chiasm.[2],[3],[4],[5] The primary goal of treatment for these tumors, therefore, remains restoration of vision and gross total resection of tumor to prevent recurrence.

Resection of TS meningiomas presents a great surgical challenge because of the close anatomical proximity to vital neurovascular structures, including the optic nerves/chiasm, internal carotid artery (ICA) and its branches, pituitary gland, infundibulum, and hypothalamus. Several conventional transcranial (TCA)[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15] and endoscopic endonasal (EEA)[16],[17],[18],[19],[20],[21],[22],[23],[24] approaches have been described in the literature with successful surgical outcome and minimum complications. However, despite good surgical results, no clear consensus has yet been reached on which approach provides the best results, and controversies still exist regarding the selection criteria of the most optimal surgical approach for TS meningiomas.

In this retrospective study, we present our experience in the management of TS meningiomas in 62 consecutive patients and discuss the safety and efficacy of the available surgical approaches and evaluate the postoperative outcome with regards to total tumor removal and visual recovery. We also analyze clinical features, tumor characteristics, and anatomical factors that might influence the selection of an appropriate surgical approach and postoperative outcome.


 » Methods Top


Medical records of all patients with TS meningioma who underwent surgery at our institutions between January 2005 and December 2018 were reviewed retrospectively. Patients with meningiomas arising from the clinoid processes, medial sphenoid wing, olfactory groove, and planum sphenoidale were excluded from this study. Patient demographics, imaging findings, operative records, and postoperative clinical and radiographic outcomes were analyzed in detail. Indications of surgery included progressive headaches/raised intracranial pressure signs, and/or visual impairment. All tumors with larger attachment at the base (>3.0 cm) and/or those with lateral extensions were considered for TCA surgery. EEA surgery was offered to the patients who had purely midline tumors and/or smaller tumor attachment at the base (<3.0 cm). Pre- and postoperative clinical evaluation included a detailed neurological examination with a formal visual field (Goldman perimetry) charting and visual acuity tests (Snellen chart). Neuroimaging with contrast computed tomography and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging was used for initial preoperative evaluation and selection of the optimal approach, as well as for the assessment of postoperative outcome.

Clinical and endocrinological outcomes were evaluated at 3–4 weeks postoperatively. Radiographic evaluation with MR imaging was done at 3–4 months after surgery, and annually thereafter. The extent of tumor removal was determined on findings of the operation record and postoperative MR imaging, and was classified as gross total (100% tumor removal in the operation record and no residual tumors on MRI), near-total (>90% tumor removal in the operation record and small residual on MRI), and subtotal (<90% tumor removal in the operation record and a visible mass in the surgical field on MRI) resection.

Operative procedures

Three standard TC approaches, including bilateral subfrontal craniotomy[12],[13],[14] [Figure 1], pterional craniotomy[8],[10],[24] [Figure 2], and supraorbital craniotomy[15],[25],[26],[27] [Figure 3], and the extended (transplanum-transtuberculum) EEA approach[16],[18],[21],[28],[29],[30],[31],[32],[33],[34],[35],[36],[37] [Figure 4] were used for tumor removal in this study.
Figure 1: Contrast-enhanced MRI scan in coronal (a) and sagittal (b) planes of a 56-year-old woman who had complaints of headaches and forgetfulness for 3 months, showing a large tuberculum sellae meningioma (44 x 36 x 38 mm) with compression of the optic chiasm and nerves, hypothalamus, and anterior third ventricle, and encasement of the internal carotid and anterior cerebral arteries. Intraoperative microphotographs (c) and (d) showing a midline tumor before and after total removal using bifrontal approach. Postoperative MR scan (e) and (f) showing complete tumor resection. OC = optic chiasm, lON = left optic nerve, rON = right optic nerve, lFL = left frontal lobe, rFL = right frontal lobe, T = tumor

Click here to view
Figure 2: A 33-year-old female presented with progressive headaches and visual disturbances of 3-4 months duration. Gadolinium-enhanced coronal (a) and sagittal (b) MR imaging showing a large tuberculum sellae meningioma with encasement of the internal carotid and anterior cerebral arteries on both sides. Intraoperative microphotographs through a right pterional craniotomy before (c) and after (d) resection of the tumor. Postoperative contrast-enhanced MR coronal (e) and sagittal (f) images showing complete tumor removal. rFL = right frontal lobe, ICA = internal carotid artery, rON = right optic nerve, lON = left optic nerve, T = tumor

Click here to view
Figure 3: A 38-year-old woman complained of progressive loss of vision since 6-8 weeks. MR images (a and b) demonstrating a midline tuberculum sellae meningioma compressing the optic nerves and partially involving the left anterior cerebral artery. Intraoperative microphotographs (c and d) before and after complete removal of the tumor using right supraorbital craniotomy. Postoperative Gadolinium-enhanced MR images in coronal (e) and sagittal (f) views showing complete tumor resection. ACA = anterior cerebral artery, ICA = internal carotid artery, rFL = right frontal, lobe, rON = right optic nerve, T = tumor

Click here to view
Figure 4: A 28-year-old man presented with progressive diminution of vision and optic pallor since past 5–6 weeks. Contrast-enhanced MR imaging in coronal (a) and sagittal (b) views demonstrating a midline tuberculum sellae meningioma (31 X 28 X 21 mm). Intraoperative photographs during the extended endonasal endoscopic surgery showing normal anatomical landmarks within the sphenoid sinus (c), before and after tumor removal (d and f), and closure with a pedicled nasoseptal flap (e). Postoperative MR images (g and h) showing complete removal of the tumor, intact pituitary gland and stalk, normal optic apparatus, and a well-marked nasoseptal flap at the closure site. Acom = anterior communicating artery, CP = carotid protuberances, CR = clival recess, F = pedicled nasoseptal flap, lOCR = lateral opticocarotid recess, lON = left optic nerve, mOCR = medial opticocarotid recess, OP = optic protuberances, PG = pituitary gland, PS = pituitary stalk, Ps = planum sphenoidale, rON = right optic nerve, S = sella turcica, T = tumor, TS = tuberculum sellae

Click here to view



 » Results Top


There were a total of 62 patients, 46 (74%) females and 16 (26%) males, with a mean age of 41.9 years (range, 28-73 years). The most common presenting symptom was impairment of vision, which was observed in 54 (87%) patients, followed by headache in 25 (40%), cognitive decline in 2 (3.2%), and seizures and dementia in 1 (1.6%) each patient. Tumor size varied from 23 to 58 mm in diameter. Surgical approaches used in 62 patients included 38 craniotomies (TCA), [bilateral subfrontal in 10 (16%), pterional in 23 (37%), and supraorbital in 5 (8%)], and extended endonasal endoscopic (transplanum-transtuberculum) approach in 24 (38.7%) patients. Tumor characteristics in patients were different and specific in each surgical subgroup, and therefore, operative results were not truly comparable.

Gross total tumor removal was achieved in 53 (85.5%), near-total in 7 (11.3%), and subtotal in 2 (3.2%) patients. The rates of GTR varied from 84.2% in TCAs (80% in bifrontal, 87% in pterional, and 80% in supraorbital), to 87.5% in EEA [Table 1]. Of two patients with subtotal tumor removal, one patient had a large tumor with lateral extension in the adjacent cavernous sinus region. The goal of EEA surgery in this 73-year-old man was to achieve adequate decompression of the optic apparatus. The second patient, a 40-year-old woman, received bifrontal craniotomy for removal of her large tumor which was extending into the sella and optic canals and was encasing the carotid and anterior cerebral arteries. Her postoperative images revealed a residual tumor mass in the optic canal and along the vessels, which was treated with adjuvant radiotherapy 5 months later when tumor progression was diagnosed.
Table 1: Postoperative outcome:extent of tumor removal according to the surgical approach

Click here to view


Overall, postoperative improvement or stabilization in vision was reported in 53 (85.5%) patients, including 79% in TCA and 96% in EEA groups [Table 2]. Nine (14.5%) patients experienced visual worsening after surgery, 8 (21%) from TCA, and 1 (4.2%) from EEA groups. Complications in the TCA group included anosmia in 8 patients, diabetes insipidus in 3, seizures in 2, CSF leak and meningitis in 1, SIADH in 1, CN III palsy in 1, vascular injury and altered sensorium in 1, periorbital swelling in 1, and wound infection in 1 patient [Table 2]. The main complication in the EEA group was CSF rhinorrhea which occurred in 9 (37.5%) patients, and 4 of them required a second surgery for reconstruction. With increased experience and continuous attempts to improve closure techniques over the years, we have managed to reduce the rate of postoperative CSF leak significantly in EEA (currently <5%). At a mean follow-up of 24 months, 3 patients developed recurrence of tumors and were treated with surgery, radiotherapy, and only observation, respectively.
Table 2: Postoperative visual outcome and complications

Click here to view



 » Discussion Top


A review of the literature suggests that aggressive surgical removal of TS meningioma, including removal of the involved dura and underlying hyperostotic bone, offers the best chance to achieve Simpson Grade I resection and to prevent recurrence of the tumor.[4],[8],[9],[17],[36],[38] Surgery also remains the optimal strategy to restore failing vision due to compression of the visual apparatus by a tumor. However, meningiomas in this region generally pose a difficult challenge to the surgeons due to their critical location and proximity with the vital neurovascular structures at the base of the skull. Traditionally, numerous midline and lateral TC approaches, including bifrontal, interhemispheric, extended bifrontal, pterional, subfrontal, orbitozygomatic, and keyhole supraorbital craniotomies have been described for surgical removal of these tumors.[4],[7],[8],[11],[27],[28],[29],[38],[39],[40],[41] Since the first description of the extended endoscopic transnasal removal of a meningioma by Weiss and coworkers in 1987,[42] there has been a steady increase in interest in using this approach for resection of the parasellar and anterior skull base tumors including TSMs.[1],[15],[17],[21],[29],[31],[42],[43],[44],[45],[46] With recent advances in the optical technology and modifications in surgical techniques like the expanded endonasal exposures, EEA has now emerged as an effective surgical option for properly selected TS meningiomas.

Gross total removal of tumor

The rate of total surgical removal of TS meningiomas varies between 60%-100% in the literature. [Table 3] and [Table 4] It is often difficult to compare surgical outcomes from different series because of the lack of uniformity in the criteria used for estimation of the degree of tumor resection. However, in a comparative study from a single institution, de Devitiis et al.[1] reported that the rate of tumor resection is almost similar in the two surgical approaches for TS meningiomas, 83.3% GTR with TCA and 86.4% with EEA. In two other studies on TS meningioma surgery, Kong et al.[34] and Bander et al.[42] reported that the postoperative outcome results in the TCA groups were similar to those in EEA groups. We used standard criteria in our study to evaluate extent of tumor resection in 62 patients, and the rates of GTR were 84% and 87.4% in TCA and EEA groups, respectively.
Table 3: Literature review showing surgical outcome in the largest published series of Transcranial surgery for tuberculum sellae meningiomas

Click here to view
Table 4: Literature review showing surgical outcome in the published series of endoscopic endonasal approach for tuberculum sellae meningiomas

Click here to view


The endonasal endoscopic approach offers several advantages over TCAs when used for the removal of suprasellar meningiomas. Firstly, it provides a wide and panoramic endoscopic view of the entire suprasellar region medial to the carotid arteries and optic nerves, which is necessary for safe and radical removal of meningiomas.[2],[31],[33],[44] Since the trajectory is from below the optic apparatus, this approach allows excellent visualization of the tumor and the important small perforating arteries at the infrachiasmatic region, an area that is difficult to visualize from above via a TCA. Furthermore, because the dural feeding branches from McConnell and posterior ethmoidal arteries take their course from below, the tumor devascularization can be performed more effectively through endonasal route. This facilitates safe and complete tumor removal with significant reduction in blood loss and operative time. Lastly, EEA is a relatively lesser invasive procedure with faster postoperative recovery and shorter hospital stay.[22],[23] Results of most of the recent studies suggest that the EEA approach is safe and excellent outcomes can be achieved when used in patients with TS meningiomas.[16],[17],[19],[20],[28],[30],[37],[38],[39],[45] Severe postoperative morbidities commonly associated with TCAs are less frequently seen with endonasal skull base approaches. Moreover, EEA is associated with a significantly lower incidence of anosmia, which occurs mainly due to stretch injury to the olfactory tracts and nerves and is observed in > 30% of cases with TCAs.[1],[45]

It is evident from the current literature that the tumor characteristics like large size, intracranial extensions, and its intimate relationship with the optic apparatus and adjacent vascular structures influence the rate of radical tumor resection.[2],[6],[7],[8],[9],[14],[15],[22],[41] With GTR rates of over 92% using TCA approaches, as compared to 50%-84% with the endonasal approach, the recent publications clearly favor the role of TCA in larger and more complex tumors.[6],[7],[8],[9],[11],[13] However, there is no similar consensus available on the optimal surgical approach for TS meningiomas of smaller/medium size, and simple configuration. It is also worth noting that there is a bias among neurosurgeons towards selecting EEA for smaller midline tumors, and TCA for larger ones. The best way to address this issue would be to do a direct comparison of the results of TCA surgery for TS meningiomas that are considered suitable for EEA by surgeons of equal expertise and experience.

Mortazavi, Sekhar, and coworkers[47] identified six clinical parameters, including tumor size (<2 to > 4 cm), optic canal involvement, vascular encasement, brain invasion, previous surgery, and prior radiation, that may influence postoperative results in patients with TSM. Based on these parameters, the authors proposed a classification system to predict surgical risk, clinical outcome, and recurrence, and to guide the surgeon to choose a TCA or EEA. According to the authors, a patient with a tumor < 2 cm, no or minimal vascular encasement, and minimal extension into the optic canals can undergo endoscopic transsphenoidal resection, whereas a patient with brain invasion, >180° vascular encasement, >4 cm in size, and severe optic canal involvement is better suitable for TCA. Using multiple regression analysis, Mascarella et al.[48] reported that the factors associated with incomplete surgical resection of TSM via an EEA include the presence of hyperostosis, cavernous ICA involvement, and long dural tail in the transverse plane. The authors developed a scoring system that had a sensitivity of 85.5% CI (42.1–99.6) and specificity of 100% CI (81.5%–100). Magill et al.[41] studied the size of the tumor origin at the tuberculum region, along with the involvement of the adjacent optic canal (s) and anterior cerebral vessels in a series of patients, and proposed a tumor grading scale, according to which, a higher tumor score was found to be associated with a higher risk of incomplete tumor resection.

Most smaller and medium-sized suprasellar meningiomas located in the midline are treated with EEA at our institution. We consider the extent of tumor origin at the skull base, and not the height or vertical dimension of the tumor in the midline, as the crucial parameter for choosing the endoscopic transsphenoidal approach. Our experience shows that the midline tumors that are upto 3.0 cm in height in the vertical plane can be removed safely and radically from below using EEA, provided their attachment area at the base is <3.0 cm and does not extend lateral to the ICAs or anterior clinoid processes on either side. Seven patients in this study had their tumor height varied between 3.0-3.3 cm in the midline but were selected for EEA because the area of tumor attachment at the TS was smaller than 3.0 cm. A complete tumor removal was achieved by using EEA in all 7 cases without any additional difficulty or risk. In cases with wide-base meningiomas that have dural extensions laterally over the optic canal and orbital roof, we prefer a TCA route.

Nearly 67%–77% of TS meningiomas extend into one or both optic canals.[2],[3],[4],[5] Removal of the entire tumor with its intracanalicular part is, therefore, a standard surgical strategy to prevent a recurrence.[3],[4],[44] Endoscope works as an extremely useful adjunct in this situation as it provides a direct view of the optic canal which can be opened widely from below, and a safe and complete tumor resection can be performed using a bimanual microsurgical technique, even when the tumor is involving the optic canals on both sides.[1],[18],[28],[29],[30],[32],[45] Occasionally, the intracanalicular tumor is circumferential or extended in the superior or lateral parts of the optic canal and the optic nerve is pushed down into the lower part of the optic canal. We avoid EEA in such cases and prefer to remove the tumor by unroofing the optic canal from above through a supraorbital or pterional approach.

Another situation where an EEA can be advantageous is when the tumor is extending down into the sella or sphenoid sinus.[22],[23],[31] Access to this region is extremely difficult with TCA approaches, resulting in failure to achieve complete tumor removal, even after considerable brain retraction and manipulation of the optic nerves. The endonasal approach provides an opportunity to successfully remove the tumor extension as well as the involved dura and the hyperostotic bone. When the tumor is extending into the anterior cranial fossa, the exposure is usually enlarged further anteriorly by drilling the posterior part of the planum sphenoidale and the tumor is removed completely with its dural tail. However, further anterior extension of the exposure in the skull base may risk injury to the olfactory nerves and tracts, and therefore should be avoided if the patient's olfaction is intact. In such cases, we consider an alternative approach like supraorbital keyhole craniotomy.

Bilateral frontal lobe edema/injury on the preoperative MR imaging is not uncommon in TS meningiomas, and when present, has a potential to aggravate during TCA surgery due to retraction of the brain retraction. The endonasal approach avoids brain handling and thus allows safe removal of tumors without frontal lobe injury. Patients who are elderly or medically unfit are not good candidates for TCA surgery because of its longer duration, and a higher risk of blood loss and brain retraction. The endonasal approach can be considered as a better alternative surgical approach in these cases, particularly when the goal of surgery is tumor decompression and not GTR.

Visual outcome

Visual impairment is the most common presenting symptom in patients harboring meningioma of TS, and a majority of patients usually show significant improvement after surgery.[4],[9],[11],[12],[24] Recent studies with direct comparison of results demonstrate significantly higher rates of visual recovery with EEA (90%-96%) and relatively increased visual worsening with the TCA approaches (19%).[1],[11],[20],[36],[38],[40],[41],[46] In a meta-analysis study comparing visual outcomes, visual improvement was observed in 75% and 58.4% of cases with EEA and TCA, respectively.[18] In our study, the visual outcome was significantly superior in EEA group (96%) as compared to the TCA group (79%) and the visual worsening occurred in 9 patients (14.5%), 21% with TCA and 4% with EEA.

The visual outcome mainly depends on several factors, including the tumor size, duration and degree of optic nerve compression, presence/absence of tumor in the optic canal, state of the normal blood supply to the optic apparatus, and magnitude of surgical manipulations of the optic nerve during tumor removal. According to Fahlbusch and Schott[8] and Raco et al.,[49] the size of the tumor is critical for visual recovery and it influences the visual outcome significantly. In their study, patients with tumors smaller than 30 mm had a better visual outcome as compared to those with tumors larger than 30 mm. Reporting surgical results in patients with TSMs, Nakamura et al.[11] mentioned that 16% of cases with tumors smaller than 30 mm in diameter in their series had significant improvement in their vision postoperatively, as opposed to 9.7% cases with tumors >30 mm. They also suggested that the larger the tumor size, the higher is the risk for visual worsening postoperatively. According to the tumor grading scale proposed by Magill and associates,[41] larger tumors i.e., those with >17 mm in size and optic canal invasion have higher tumor score and therefore have poor rates of visual outcomes, when compared with the smaller tumors with lower tumor score. In a clinical study of 100 cases of TSM, Lee and colleagues[50] demonstrated that the origin of TSM is an important prognostic factor and that it was located at the one lateral end of the TS in 85% of patients in their study. The authors concluded that the laterality of tumor origin, along with the preoperative duration of symptoms, and optic atrophy, was associated with long term poor outcome. In our series of 62 patients with tumor size varying between 2.3 and 5.8 cm, the overall rate of visual improvement was 85.5%.

The risk of postoperative visual impairment has been reported as 8%–42% in various studies.[3],[4],[8],[10],[46] Most authors attribute this to the direct surgical trauma and/or disturbance in the vascular supply of the optic chiasm and nerves during the operation. The optic nerves and chiasm are especially vulnerable to compromise in their normal blood supply via small subchiasmatic perforating arteries which are difficult to visualize from a suprachiasmatic view provided by the TCA approach from above.[20],[41],[45] When approached endonasally from below, surgical manipulation of the optic nerves and chiasm can be avoided or reduced to a minimum, and the vascular supply to the undersurface of the optic apparatus can be preserved more effectively under direct vision.

Failure to remove a tumor from the optic canal is one of the most common causes of persistent visual loss or deterioration. The tumors most often occupy the inferomedial aspect of the canal which is difficult to access from above through a TCA approach. An endonasal approach from below offers a straight corridor for removal of the intracanalicular tumor and also allows dissection for a 270° release of the optic nerve under direct vision. TS meningiomas are occasionally associated with few anatomical anomalies of the sphenoid sinus, such as pneumosinus dilatans. When present, it poses a difficult surgical problem because of its high-lying position that requires more vigorous brain retraction when approached via a TCA route.[34],[51] The endonasal approach from below provides a safe and more effective route to access the TS meningiomas without any additional risk when this particular anatomical variation coexists.

The tumor consistency, however, appears to substantially influence the extent of its removal when endonasal endoscopic approach is used.[22],[23] While the soft and suckable tumors can be removed with a relative ease, firm or fibrous tumors are usually difficult to remove through EEA, often resulting in either incomplete resection or switching over to a trancranial approach. Recently, there has been a growing interest in the use of MR technology to predict meningioma consistency, especially soft or firm/fibrous, which may have immense impact on the preoperative planning, patient counseling, and intraoperative decision-making.[22],[52],[53]

The most common complication after EEA surgery for TS meningiomas is cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak. The rate of CSF leak generally ranges from 10% to 43% in most EEA series.[1],[4],[17],[18],[20],[23],[27],[45] Most of the studies with high CSF leaks are old and published before the routine use of a vascularized nasoseptal flap for skull base reconstruction. Recent reports have demonstrated significantly reduced CSF leak rates, mostly below 5.4% when reconstruction is performed with a pedicled nasoseptal flap.[28],[45] The overall incidence of this complication in our series was 37.5%, which could most probably be due to a much higher occurrence of CSF leakage in the initial part of our endonasal surgery experience. However, by improving our technique of closure using multilayered reconstruction together with Hadad-Bassagasteguy vascularized nasoseptal flap,[35] we have managed to bring it down considerably in past few years. During our initial experience with EEA in the first 3 years of this study the postoperative CSF rhinorrhea was observed in all 6 patients, which subsequently reduced to 3 in 13 patients in the next 7 years. No one of our 5 consecutive patients in the last 3 years had CSF leakage following endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery for TS meningioma.


 » Conclusions Top


The recent addition of few relatively lesser invasive surgical techniques like endonasal endoscopic transtuberculum approach and supraorbital keyhole minicraniotomy using an eyebrow skin incision, in the already existing traditional TCA approaches, has enhanced the efficacy and safety of surgery for meningiomas of TS. Because each approach has unique advantages and disadvantages, the choice to use an endonasal or TCA approach must be based on the specific characteristics of each case. Careful patient selection and surgeon's comfort with one approach over the other are the two most important factors to determine optimal surgical strategy. We prefer EEA for all midline tumors which are located medial to the internal carotid arteries with their dural attachment not extending laterally to clinoid processes. Meningiomas extending into the optic canals, sella turcica, sphenoid sinus, or anteriorly to the planum sphenoidal region are also suitable in our opinion for removal through EEA. Alternative approaches like pterional or supraorbital craniotomy should be considered for tumors that are firm/fibrous in consistency, extend laterally beyond the ICA, or involve the anterior cerebral arteries. The bifrontal approach is reserved for those tumors that present with larger area of attachment and lateral extensions on both sides, bilateral optic canal invasion, and severe vascular encasement. Risks of anosmia should be evaluated on a case-to-case basis while selecting the surgical approach.

Declaration of patient consent

The authors certify that all appropriate patient consent has been obtained. The patients understand that their names and initials will not be published and due efforts will be made to conceal their identity, but anonymity cannot be guaranteed.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
 » References Top

1.
de Divitiis E, Esposito F, Cappabianca P, Cavallo LM, de Divitiis O. Tuberculum sellae meningiomas: High route or low route? A series of 51 consecutive cases. Neurosurgery 2008;62:556–63.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Schick U, Hassler W. Surgical management of tuberculum sellae meningiomas: Involvement of the optic canal and visual outcome. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2005;76:977–83.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Sade B, Lee JH. High incidence of optic canal involvement in tuberculum sellae meningiomas: Rationale for aggressive skull base approach. Surg Neurol 2009;72:118–23.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Mahmoud M, Nader R, Al-Mefty O. Optic canal involvement in tuberculum sellae meningiomas: Influence on approach, and visual recovery. Neurosurgery 2010;67 (3 Suppl):ONS108–19.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Nimmannitya P, Goto T, Terakawa Y, Sato H, Kawashima T, Morisako H, et al. Characteristic of optic canal invasion in 31 consecutive cases with tuberculum sellae meningioma. Neurosurg Rev 2016;39:691–7.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Jallo G, Benjamin V. Tuberculum sellae meningiomas: Microsurgical anatomy and surgical technique. Neurosurgery 2002;51:1432-9.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Chi JH, McDermott MW. Tuberculum sellae meningiomas. Neurosurg Focus 2003;14. doi: 10.3171/foc. 2003.14.6.6.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Fahlbusch R, Schott W. Pterional surgery of meningiomas of the tuberculum sellae and planum sphenoidale: Surgical results with special consideration of ophthalmological and endocrinological outcomes. J Neurosurg 2002;96:235–43.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Goel A, Muzumdar D, Desai KI. Tuberculum sellae meninlae meningiomas after extradural optic nerve decompression. gioma: A report on management on the basis of a surgical experience with 70 patients. Neurosurgery 2002;51:1358–64.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Pamir MN, Ozduman K, Belirgen M, Kilic T, Ozek MM. Outcome determinants of pterional surgery for tuberculum sellae meningiomas. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2005;147:1121–30.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Nakamura M, Roser F, Struck M, Vorkapic P, Samii M. Tuberculum sellae meningiomas: Clinical outcome considering different surgical approaches. Neurosurgery 2006;59:1019–29.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Ganna A, Dehdashti AR, Karabatsou K, Gentili F. Frontobasal interhemispheric approach for tuberculum sellae meningiomas; long-term visual outcome. Br J Neurosurg 2009;23:422–30.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Chokyu I, Goto T, Ishibashi K, Nagata T, Ohata K. Bilateral subfrontal approach for tuberculum sellae meningiomas in long-term postoperative visual outcome. Clinical article. J Neurosurg 2011;115:802–10.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Solero CL, Giombini S, Morello G. Suprasellar and olfactory meningiomas. Report on a series of 153 personal cases. Acta Neurocir (Wien) 1983;67:181–94.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Linsler S, Fischer G, Skliarenko V, Stadie A, Oertel J. Endoscopic assisted supraorbital keyhole approach or endoscopic endonasal approach in cases of tuberculum sellae meningioma: Which surgical route should be favored? World Neurosurg 2017;104:601–11.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Cook SW, Smith Z, Kelly DF. Endonasal transsphenoidal removal of tuberculum sellae meningiomas: Technical note. Neurosurgery 2004;55:239–46.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Laufer I, Anand VK, Schwartz TH. Endoscopic, endonasal extended transsphenoidal, transplanum transtuberculum approach for resection of suprasellar lesions. J Neurosurg 2007;106:400–6.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
de Divitiis E, Cavallo LM, Esposito F, Stella L, Messina A. Extended endoscopic transsphenoidal approach for tuberculum sellae meningiomas. Neurosurgery2007;61 (5 Suppl 2):229–38.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Cavallo LM, de Divitiis O, Aydin S, Messina A, Esposito F, Iconetta G, et al. Extended endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal approach to the suprasellar area: Anatomic considerations— part 1. Neurosurgery 2008;62 (6 Suppl 3):1202–12.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Wang Q, Lu XJ, Li B, Ji WY, Chen KL. Extended endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal removal of tuberculum sellae meningiomas: A preliminary report. J Clin Neurosci 2009;16:889–93.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Gardner PA, Kassam AB, Thomas A, Snyderman CH, Carrau RL, Mintz AH, et al. Endoscopic endonasal approach for anterior cranial base and suprasellar lesions: Indications and limitations. Neurosurgery 2009;64:677–89.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Bowers CA, Altay T, Couldwell WT. Surgical decision-making strategies in tuberculum sellae meningioma resection. Neurosurg Focus 2011;30:E1.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Koutourousiou M, Fernandez-Miranda JC, Stefko ST, Wang EW, Snyderman CH, Gardner PA. Endoscopic endonasal surgery for suprasellar meningiomas: Experience with 75 patients. J Neurosurg 2014;120:1326–39.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Nanda A, Ambekar S, Javalkar V, Sharma M. Technical nuances in the management of tuberculum sellae and diaphragma sellae meningiomas. Neurosurg Focus 2013;35:E7.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Jane JA, Park TS, Pobereskin LH, Winn HR, Butler AB. The supraorbital approach: Technical note. Neurosurgery 1982;11:537–42.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Reisch R, Perneczky A, Filippi R. Surgical technique of the supraorbital key-hole craniotomy. Surg Neurol 2003;59:223–7.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Fatemi N, Dusick JR, de Paiva Neto MA, Malkasian D, Kelly DF. Endonasal versus supraorbital keyhole removal of craniopharyngiomas and tuberculum sellae meningiomas. Neurosurgery 2009;64 (5 Suppl 2):269–86.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Kassam A, Snyderman CH, Mintz A, Gardner P, Carrau RL. Expanded endonasal approach: The rostrocaudal axis. Part I. Crista galli to the sella turcica. Neurosurg Focus 2005;19:E3.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Dehdashti AR, Ganna A, Witterick I, Gentili F. Expanded Endoscopic endonasal resection of anterior cranial base meningiomas. Neurosurgery 2008;63:36–54.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Cappabianca P, Cavallo LM, Esposito F, De Divitiis O, Messina A, De Divitiis E. Extended endoscopic endonasal approach to the midline skull base: The evolving role of transsphenoidal surgery. Adv Tech Stand Neurosurg 2008;33:151–99.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Liu JK, Christiano LD, PateL SK, Tubbs RS, Eloy JA. Surgical nuances for removal of tuberculum sellae meningiomas with optic canal involvement using the endoscopic endonasal extended transsphenoidal transplanum transtuberculum approach. Neurosurg Focus 2011;30:E2.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Cappabianca P, Cavallo LM, Esposito F, Solari D. Sellar/tuberculum approach. In: Kassam AB, Gardner PA, editors. Endoscopic Approaches to Skull Base. Progress in Neurological Surgery. Basel: Karger; 2012. p. 41–59.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Kulwin C, Schwartz TH, Cohen-Gadol AA. Endoscopic extended transsphenoidal resection of tuberculum sellae meningiomas: Nuances of neurosurgical technique. Neurosurg Focus 2013;35:E6.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Kong D-S, Hong C-K, Hong SD, Nam D-H, Lee J-II, Seol HJ, et al. Selection of endoscopic or transcranial surgery for tuberculum sellae meningiomas according to specific anatomical features: A retrospective multicenter analysis (KOSEN-002). J Neurosurg 2019;130:838–47.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Hadad G, Bassagasteguy L, Carrau RL, Mataza JC, Kassam A, Snyderman CH, et al. A novel reconstructive technique after endoscopic expanded endonasal approaches: Vascular pedicle nasoseptal flap. Laryngoscope 2006;116:1882–6.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Benjamin V, Russell SM. The microsurgical nuances of resecting tuberculum sellae meningiomas. Neurosurgery 2005;56 (2 Suppl):411–7.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Kaptain GJ, Vincent DA, Sheehan JP, Laws ER Jr. Transsphenoidal approaches for the extracapsular resection of midline suprasellar and anterior cranial base lesions. Neurosurgery 2001;49:94–101.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Kitano M, Taneda M, Nakao Y. Postoperative improvement in visual function in patients with tuberculum sellae meningiomas: Results of the extended transsphenoidal and transcranial approaches. J Neurosurg 2007;107:337–46.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Dusick JR, Esposito F, Kelly DF, Cohan P, DeSalles A, Becker DP, et al. The extended direct endonasal transsphenoidal approach for nonadenomatous suprasellar tumors. J Neurosurg 2005;102:832–41.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Makarenko S, Carreras EM, Akagami R. Craniotomy for perisellar meningiomas: Comparison of simple (appropriate for endoscopic approach) versus complex anatomy and surgical outcomes. J Neurosurg 2017;126:1191–200.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
Magill ST, Morshe RA, Lucas CHG, Aghi MK, Theodopoulos PV, Berger MS, et al. Tuberculum sellae meningiomas: Grading scale to assess surgical outcomes using the transcranial versus transsphenoidal approach. Neurosurg Focus 2018;44:E9.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.
Bander ED, Singh H, Ogilvie CB, Cusic RC, Pisapia DJ, Tsiouris AJ, et al. Endoscopic endonasal versus transcranial approach to tuberculum sellae and planum sphenoidale meningiomas in a similar cohort of patients. J Neurosurg 2018;128:40–8.  Back to cited text no. 42
    
43.
Ottenhausen M, Rumalla K, Alalade AF, Nair P, La Corte E, Younus I, et al. Decision-making algorithm for minimally invasive approaches to anterior skull base meningiomas. Neurosurg Focus 2018;44:E7.  Back to cited text no. 43
    
44.
Margalit NS, Lesser JB, Moche J, Sen C. Meningiomas involving the optic nerve: Technical aspects and outcomes for a series of 50 patients. Neurosurgery 2003;53:523–33.  Back to cited text no. 44
    
45.
Gardner PA, Kassam AB, Thomas A, Snyderman CH, Carrau RL, Mintz AH, et al. Endoscopic endonasal resection of anterior cranial base meningiomas. Neurosurgery 2008;63:36–54.  Back to cited text no. 45
    
46.
Komotar RJ, Starke RM, Raper DM, Anand VK, Schwartz TH. Endoscopic endonasal versus open transcranial resection of anterior midline skull base meningiomas. World Neurosurg 2012;77:713–24.  Back to cited text no. 46
    
47.
Mortazavi MM, da Silva BH, Ferreira M Jr, Barber MJ, Pridgeon JS, Sekhar LN. Planum sphenoidale and tuberculum sellae meningiomas: Operative nuances of a modern surgical technique with outcome and proposal of a new classification system. World Neurosurg 2016;86:270-86.  Back to cited text no. 47
    
48.
Mascarella MA, Tewfik MA, Aldosari M, Sirhan D, Zeitouni A, Di Maio S. A simple scoring system to predict the resectability of skull base meningiomas via an endoscopic endonasal approach. World Neurosurg 2016;91:582-91.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu. 2016.04.093.  Back to cited text no. 48
    
49.
Raco A, Bristot R, Domenicucci M, Cantore G. Meningiomas of the tuberculum sellae. Our experience in 69 cases surgically treated between 1973 and 1993. J Neurosurg Sci 1999;43:253–62.  Back to cited text no. 49
    
50.
Lee S, Hong SH, Cho YH, Kim JH, Kim CJ. Anatomical origin of tuberculum sellae meningioma: Off-midline location and its clinical implications. World Neurosurg 2016;89:552-61.  Back to cited text no. 50
    
51.
Hirst LW, Miller NR, Hodges FJ III, Corbett JJ, Thompson S. Sphenoid pneumosinus dilatans. A sign of meningioma originating in the optic canal. Neuroradiology 1982;22:207–10.  Back to cited text no. 51
    
52.
Maiuri F, Iaconetta G, de Divitiis O, Cirillo S, Di Salle F, De Caro ML. Intracranial meningiomas: Correlations between MR imaging and histology. Eur J Radiol 1999;31:69–75.  Back to cited text no. 52
    
53.
Kashimura H, Inoue T, Ogasawara K, Arai H, Otawara Y, Kanbara Y, et al. Prediction of meningioma consistency using fractional anisotropy value measured by magnetic resonance imaging. J Neurosurg 2007;107:784–7.  Back to cited text no. 53
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4]



 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
   
Online since 20th March '04
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow