Endoscopic endonasal versus transcranial approach to resection of olfactory groove meningiomas: a systematic review
Despite the increasing utility of the endoscopic endonasal approach (EEA) for management of anterior skull base (ASB) pathologies, the optimal treatment strategy for olfactory groove meningiomas (OGM) remains unclear. This project sought to systematically compare outcomes of EEA management with conventional transcranial approach (TCA) for the treatment of OGMs. A systematic review was performed to identify studies that compared outcomes following EEA and TCA for OGMs. Data extracted from each study included gross total resection (GTR), incidence of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leaks, and post-operative complications including anosmia. The results of the search yielded 5 studies which met the criteria for inclusion and analysis. All studies compared TCA (n = 922) with EEA (n = 141) outcomes for OGMs. Overall, the rate of gross total resection (GTR) was lower among the endoscopic group (70.9%) relative to the transcranial group (91.5%). The rate of post-operative CSF leak was 6.3% vs. 25.5% for the transcranial and endoscopic groups, respectively. Post-operative anosmia was higher for patients undergoing EEA (95.9%) compared with patients in the transcranial group (37.4%). In this analysis, EEA was associated with a lower rate of GTR and higher incidences of CSF leaks and post-operative anosmia. However, with increasing surgeon familiarity of the endoscopic anatomy and technique for managing ASB pathologies, a nuanced approach may be used to minimize patient morbidity and widen the spectrum of skull base surgery.
KeywordsCraniotomy Endoscopy Meningioma Olfactory groove Skull base
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Only published studies were used for our analysis, and no patient medical records were accessed in completing this article. Thus, patients’ consent was not required.