Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 22, 2026
Endoscopic Endonasal Trans-sphenoidal Approach: Minimally Invasive Surgery for Pituitary Adenomas
Published on: January 17, 2018
Mononostril versus Binostril Endoscopic Transsphenoidal Approach for Pituitary Adenomas: A Systematic Review and
Guodao Wen1, Chao Tang1, Chunyu Zhong2
1Department of Neurosurgery, Jinling Hospital, School of Medicine, Nanjing University, 305 East Zhongshan Road, Nanjing, 210002, China.
Background:
Over the past several decades, the endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal approach (EETA) has gradually become a preferred option of pituitary adenomas surgery because of its minimal invasiveness and high efficiency. However, some EETA operations were performed through one nostril (mononostril), while other EETA operations were performed through both nostrils (binostril). Therefore, we conducted this study to compare the pros and cons of these two methods in an attempted to confirm which method is more effective.
Methods:
We executed a systematic literature search of PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science and Medline (1992-2015). The language is limited to English and all studies should meet the inclusion criteria. Comparisons were made for postoperative outcomes, complications, and other relevant parameters between the mononostril and the binostril group. Statistical analyses of categorical variables were undertaken by the use of Stata 12.0 and SPASS 19.0.
Results:
Thirty studies, involving 4805 patients, were included. The two groups had similar results in GTR rate (included GTR rate of macroadenomas), hormonal remission rate, improvement in visual function, postoperative CSF leak, permanent diabetes insipidus, meningitis, and sinusitis. The binostril group had less temporary diabetes insipidus (2.9% vs. 5.3%, p = 0.022), less anterior pituitary insufficiency (2.3% vs. 6.4%, p = 0.000) and few hospitalization days (3.2 days vs. 4.4 days, p<0.05) than the mononostril group. However, the mononostril group had less rate of epistaxis (0.4% vs. 1.5%, p = 0.008) than the binostril group. For invasive macroadenomas, the binostril group seem to demonstrate a tendency towards better outcomes though there was no subgroup analysis between the two groups.
Conclusion:
The binostril approach had less temporary diabetes insipidus, anterior pituitary insufficiency, and a shorter length of hospital stay, although they demonstrated a higher rate of epistaxis than the mononstril group. Additionally, the binostril group seemed to suggest a tendency towards better outcomes for invasive macroadenomas.
