Ius, Tamara

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: In skull base surgery, endoscopic endonasal approaches require precise evaluation of the area of exposure and the maneuverability provided by each approach. Current neuroanatomical methodologies for quantifying these parameters primarily rely on computed tomography (CT) scans and neuronavigation systems, which entail significant financial investment. The aim of this study was to develop and validate an innovative, cost-effective methodology using an endoscopic photogrammetric model to measure the exposure area and maneuverability in endoscopic endonasal approaches, offering an accessible alternative to existing techniques. METHODS: Six cadaveric specimens were used to validate the accuracy of endoscopic photogrammetric measurements by comparing them with direct measurements. Subsequently, the exposure area, angle of attack, and surgical freedom were analyzed for 3 endoscopic approaches to the parasellar region: contralateral transmaxillary, single-nostril, and double-nostril approaches. RESULTS: Photogrammetric measurements demonstrated a high level of concordance with direct cadaveric measurements, with a mean difference of 0.02 mm as shown in the Bland-Altman plot. In addition, measurements obtained in comparative analysis describing the exposure area and maneuverability of 3 endoscopic approaches were congruent with those reported in existing literature derived using CT scans and neuronavigation systems. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this study is the first to validate endoscopic photogrammetric models as a measurement tool in neuroanatomy. Performing direct measurements on 3D models might eliminate the necessity of expensive CT and neuronavigation systems for volumetric quantification. Our cost-effective methodology allows for the widespread democratization of anatomical quantification within skull base neuroanatomy.

Background/Objectives: Tuberculum sellae meningiomas (TSMs) constitute 5–10% of intracranial meningiomas, often causing visual impairment. Traditional microsurgical transcranial approaches (MTAs) have been effective, but the emergence of innovative surgical trajectories, such as endoscopic endonasal approaches (EEAs), has sparked debate. While EEAs offer advantages like reduced brain retraction, they are linked to higher cerebrospinal fluid leak (CSF leak) risk. This meta-analysis aims to comprehensively compare the efficacy and safety of EEAs and MTAs for the resection of TSMs, offering insights into their respective outcomes and complications. Methods: A comprehensive literature review of the databases PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, and Ovid EMBASE was conducted for articles published on TSMs treated with either EEA or MTA until 2024. The systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Meta-analysis was performed to estimate pooled event rates and assess heterogeneity. Fixed- and random-effects were used to assess 95% confidential intervals (CIs) of presenting symptoms, outcomes, and complications. Results: A total of 291 papers were initially identified, of which 18 studies spanning from 2000 to 2024 met the inclusion criteria. The exclusion of 180 articles was due to reasons such as irrelevance, non-reporting of selected results, systematic literature review or meta-analysis, and a lack of details on method/results. The 18 studies comprised a total sample of 1093 patients: 444 patients who underwent EEAs and 649 patients who underwent MTAs for TSMs. Gross total resection (GTR) rates ranged from 80.9% for EEAs to 79.8% for MTAs. The rate of visual improvement was 86.6% in the EEA group and 65.4% in the MTA group. The recurrence rate in the EEA group was 6.9%, while it was 5.1% in MTA group. The postoperative complications analyzed were CSF leak, infections, dysosmia, intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), and endocrine disorders. The rate of CSF leak was 9.8% in the EEA group and 2.1% in MTA group. The rate of infections in the EEA group was 5.7%, while it was 3.7% in the MTA group. The rate of dysosmia ranged from 10.3% for MTAs to 12.9% for EEAs. The rate of ICH in the EEA group was 0.9%, while that in the MTA group was 3.8%. The rate of endocrine disorders in the EEA group was 10.8%, while that in the MTA group was 10.2%. No significant difference was detected in the rate of GTR between the EEA and MTA groups (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.7–0.95; p = 0.53), while a significant benefit in visual outcomes was shown in EEAs (OR 3.54, 95% CI 2.2–5.72; p < 0.01). There was no significant variation in the recurrence rate between EEA and MTA groups (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.19–4.46; p = 0.89). While a considerably increased chance of CSF leak from EEAs was shown (OR 4.47, 95% CI 2.52–7.92; p < 0.01), no significant difference between EEA and MTA groups was detected in the rate of infections (OR 1.92, 95% CI 0.73–5.06; p = 0.15), the rate of dysosmia (OR 1.25, 95% CI 0.31–4.99; p = 0.71), the rate of ICH (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.20–1.87; p = 0.33), and the rate of endocrine disorders (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.69–1.95; p = 0.53). Conclusions: This meta-analysis suggests that both EEAs and MTAs are viable options for TSM resection, with distinct advantages and drawbacks. The EEAs demonstrate superior visual outcomes in selected cases while GTR and recurrence rates support the overall effectiveness of MTAs and EEAs. Endoscopic endonasal approaches had a higher chance of CSF leaks, but there are no appreciable variations in other complications. These results provide additional insights regarding patient outcomes in the intricate clinical setting of TSMs.