Related Experiment Videos
Preliminary comparison of the endoscopic transnasal vs the sublabial transseptal approach for clinically
M T Sheehan1, J L Atkinson, J L Kasperbauer
1Division of Endocrinology, Metabolism, Nutrition, and Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Minn. 55905, USA.
Objective:
To assess the advantages and disadvantages of an endoscopic transnasal approach to pituitary surgery for a select group of clinically nonfunctioning macroadenomas and to compare results of this approach with the sublabial transseptal approach at a single institution.
Patients And Methods:
We retrospectively reviewed the records of 26 patients with clinically nonfunctioning pituitary macroadenomas approached endoscopically and 44 matched control patients with the same tumors approached sublabially between January 1, 1995, and October 31, 1997.
Results:
At baseline, the groups were not significantly different for age, sex distribution, number of comorbid conditions, visual field defects, degree of anterior pituitary insufficiency, or preoperative assessment of tumor volume or invasiveness. Mean (SD) operative times were significantly reduced in the endoscopic group vs the sublabial group: 2.7 (0.7) hours vs 3.4 (0.9) hours (P < .001). Postoperative assessment of surgical resection and postoperative alterations of anterior pituitary function or visual fields were not significantly different between groups, and complication rates were similar in both groups.
Conclusion:
This endoscopic transnasal approach to pituitary resection results in significantly shorter operative time without compromising the extent of tumor resection. The distinct disadvantage of this approach is an off-center view of the sella and a diminished working channel to the sella turcica. For these reasons, the endoscopic approach or its variation is an alternative to the sublabial approach but should be considered only by experienced pituitary neurosurgeons.