Comparative Quantitative Visual Improvement in Endoscopic Endonasal Transphenoidal Versus Transcranial Resection of Pituitary Adenoma

Aamir Irshad; Mian Iftikhar Ul Haq

doi:10.70749/ijbr.v3i5.1199

Authors

Aamir Irshad Department of Neurosurgery, Hayatabad Medical Complex, Peshawar, KP, Pakistan.
Mian Iftikhar Ul Haq Department of Neurosurgery, Hayatabad Medical Complex, Peshawar, KP, Pakistan.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.70749/ijbr.v3i5.1199

Keywords:

Quantitative Analysis, Visual Improvement, Endoscopic Endonasal, Transcranial Resection

Abstract

Introduction: Pituitary adenomas are common benign tumors arising from the anterior pituitary gland, accounting for approximately 10–15% of intracranial neoplasms. Objective: To compare the quantitative visual improvement achieved using the endoscopic endonasal approach vs open transcranial approach performed for pituitary adenoma surgery performed in neurosurgery department of Hayatabad Medical Complex MTI hospital Peshawar. Material and Methods: This Randomized control trial was conducted at Neurosurgery department, HMC Hospital Peshawar during 26 October 2024 to 25 Feb 2025. Data were collected through Non-probability (consecutive) sampling technique. A total of 76 patients diagnosed with pituitary adenomas were randomized into two groups (A and B) of 38 patients each. Group A underwent the endoscopic endonasal approach, while Group B underwent the transcranial approach. Results: Visual improvement was significantly higher in Group A (84.2%) compared to Group B (57.9%) (p = 0.01). The mean surgery duration was shorter in Group A (150 ± 20 minutes) than in Group B (180 ± 25 minutes) (p = 0.01). Postoperative complications were observed in 10.5% of Group A and 26.3% of Group B (p = 0.04). Patient satisfaction scores were also higher in Group A (8.5 ± 1.2) compared to Group B (7.0 ± 1.5) (p = 0.02). Conclusion: It is concluded that the endoscopic endonasal approach offers superior visual outcomes, shorter operative times, and fewer complications compared to the transcranial approach. These findings support the adoption of the minimally invasive endoscopic technique as the preferred surgical method for pituitary adenoma resection, with the transcranial approach reserved for specific complex cases. Further studies are needed to evaluate long-term outcomes and applicability to a broader patient population.

References

Melmed, S., Kaiser, U. B., Lopes, M. B., Bertherat, J., Syro, L. V., Raverot, G., Reincke, M., Johannsson, G., Beckers, A., Fleseriu, M., Giustina, A., Wass, J. A. H., & Ho, K. K. Y. (2022). Clinical Biology of the Pituitary Adenoma. Endocrine Reviews, 43(6). https://doi.org/10.1210/endrev/bnac010

Wan, X., Chen, J., Wang, J., Liu, Y., Shu, K., & Lei, T. (2022). Overview of the 2022 WHO Classification of Pituitary Adenomas/Pituitary Neuroendocrine Tumors: Clinical Practices, Controversies, and Perspectives. Current Medical Science, 42(6), 1111–1118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11596-022-2673-6

Han, A. J., Fleseriu, M., & Varlamov, E. V. (2023). Symptoms at presentation in conservatively managed patients with non-functioning pituitary adenomas. HORMONES, 22(2), 305–309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42000-023-00444-8

Nakhleh, A., Naffa, M. A., Sviri, G., Shehadeh, N., & Hochberg, I. (2021). Outcomes of pituitary apoplexy: a comparison of microadenomas and macroadenomas. Pituitary, 24(4), 492–498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11102-020-01124-1

Bashir A, Khateeb EW, Lone IA. An Analysis of Visual Field Defects in Pituitary Macroadenomas: A Prospective Study. J Adv Med Med Res. 2024;36(5):292-6

Luzzi, S., Lucifero, A. G., Rabski, J., Paulo, & Al-Mefty, O. (2023). The Party Wall: Redefining the Indications of Transcranial Approaches for Giant Pituitary Adenomas in Endoscopic Era. Cancers, 15(8), 2235–2235. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15082235

de Vries, F., Lobatto, D. J., Verstegen, M. J. T., Schutte, P. J., Notting, I. C., Kruit, M. C., Ahmed, S. F., Pereira, A. M., van Furth, W. R., & Biermasz, N. R. (2021). Outcome Squares Integrating Efficacy and Safety, as Applied to Functioning Pituitary Adenoma Surgery. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 106(9), e3300–e3311. https://doi.org/10.1210/clinem/dgab138

Tang, O. Y., Chen, J.-S., Monje, S., Kumarapuram, S., Eloy, J. A., & Liu, J. K. (2024). Comparison of Surgical Modalities for Giant Pituitary Adenoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 1413 Patients. Operative Neurosurgery. https://doi.org/10.1227/ons.0000000000001238

Toader, C. (2023). Comparison of Transcranial and Transsphenoidal Approaches in Intra and Suprasellar Pituitary Adenomas – Systematic Review. Acta Endocrinologica (Bucharest), 19(2), 228–233. https://doi.org/10.4183/aeb.2023.228

Han, S., Gao, W., Jing, Z., Wang, Y., & Wu, A. (2017). How to deal with giant pituitary adenomas: transsphenoidal or transcranial, simultaneous or two-staged? Journal of Neuro-Oncology, 132(2), 313–321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-017-2371-6

Chibbaro, S., Signorelli, F., Milani, D., Cebula, H., Scibilia, A., Bozzi, M. T., Messina, R., Zaed, I., Todeschi, J., Ollivier, I., Mallereau, C.-H., Dannhoff, G., Romano, A., Cammarota, F., Servadei, F., Pop, R., Baloglu, S., Lasio, G., Luca, F., & Goichot, B. (2021). Primary Endoscopic Endonasal Management of Giant Pituitary Adenomas: Outcome and Pitfalls from a Large Prospective Multicenter Experience. Cancers (Basel) , 13(14), 3603–3603. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13143603

Muskens, I. S., Zamanipoor Najafabadi, A. H., Briceno, V., Lamba, N., Senders, J. T., van Furth, W. R., Verstegen, M. J. T., Smith, T. R. S., Mekary, R. A., Eenhorst, C. A. E., & Broekman, M. L. D. (2017). Visual outcomes after endoscopic endonasal pituitary adenoma resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pituitary, 20(5), 539–552. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11102-017-0815-9

Marigil Sanchez, M., Karekezi, C., Almeida, J. P., Kalyvas, A., Castro, V., Velasquez, C., & Gentili, F. (2019). Management of Giant Pituitary Adenomas. Neurosurgery Clinics of North America, 30(4), 433–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nec.2019.05.004

Nishioka, H., Hara, T., Nagata, Y., Fukuhara, N., Yamaguchi-Okada, M., & Yamada, S. (2017). Inherent Tumor Characteristics That Limit Effective and Safe Resection of Giant Nonfunctioning Pituitary Adenomas. World Neurosurgery, 106, 645–652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2017.07.043

Yang, C., Fan, Y., Shen, Z., Wang, R., & Bao, X. (2019). Transsphenoidal versus Transcranial Approach for Treatment of Tuberculum Sellae Meningiomas: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Comparative Studies. Scientific Reports, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-41292-0

Kemchoknatee, P., Singhakul, C., Arjkongharn, N., Vongsa, N., Tangon, D., & Srisombut, T. (2024). Insights into Visual Outcomes and Determinants in Pituitary Adenoma Surgery: A 5-Year Retrospective Cohort Study. Clinical Ophthalmology, Volume 18, 1779–1788. https://doi.org/10.2147/opth.s463303

Uy, B., Wilson, B., Kim, W. J., Prashant, G., & Bergsneider, M. (2019). Visual Outcomes After Pituitary Surgery. Neurosurgery Clinics of North America, 30(4), 483–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nec.2019.06.002

Park, S. H., Kang, M. S., Kim, S. Y., Lee, J.-E., Shin, J. H., Choi, H., & Kim, S. J. (2021). Analysis of factors affecting visual field recovery following surgery for pituitary adenoma. International Ophthalmology, 41(6), 2019–2026. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-021-01757-6