Abstract
Introduction Endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery (ETSS) for pituitary adenoma (PA) has been a recent shift from the traditional microscopic technique. Although some literature demonstrated superiority of ETSS over the microscopic method and some evaluated mono- vs. binostril access within the ETSS, none had explored the potential influence of dedicated instrument, as this procedure had evolved, on patients' outcomes when compared to traditional microscopic tools. Objective To investigate our own clinical and radiographic outcomes of ETSS for PA with its technical evolution over time as well as a significance of, having vs. lacking, the special endoscopic tools. Methods Included patients underwent ETSS for PA performed by the first author (AH). Prospectively recorded patients' data concerning pre-, intra- and postoperative clinical and radiographic assessments were subject to analysis. The three groups of differently evolving ETSS techniques, beginning with mononostril (MN) to binostril ETSS with standard microsurgical instruments (BN1) and, lastly, binostril ETSS with specially-designed endoscopic tools (BN2), were examined for their impact on the intra- and, short- and long-term, postoperative results. Also, the survival after ETSS for PA, as defined by the need for reintervention in each technical group, was appraised. Results From January 2006 to 2012, there were 47, 101 and 72 ETSS, from 183 patients, in the MN, BN1 and BN2 cohorts, respectively. Significant preoperative findings were greater proportion of patients with prior surgery (p=0.01) and tumors with parasellar extension (p=0.02) in the binostril (BN1&2) than the MN group. Substantially shorter operative time and less amount of blood loss were evident as our technique had evolved (p<0.001). Despite higher incidence, and more advanced grades, of cerebrospinal fluid leakage in the binostril groups (p < 0.001), the requirement for post-ETSS surgical repair was less than the mononostril cohort (p=0.04). At six-month follow-up (n=214), quantitative radiographic outcome analysis was markedly superior in BN2. Consequently, long-term result was better in this latest technical group. Important negative risk factors, from multivariate Cox regression analysis, were prior surgery, Knosp grade, and firm tumor while BN1, BN2 and percentages of anteroposterior dimension PA removal had positive effect on longer survival. Conclusion The evolution of technique for ETSS for PA from MN to BN2 has shown its efficacy by improving intra- and postoperative outcomes in our study cohorts. Based on our results, not only that a neurosurgeon, wishing to start performing ETSS, should enroll in a formal fellowship training but he/she should also utilize advanced endoscopic tools, as we have proved its superior results in dealing with PA.