Current Medical Science

, Volume 38, Issue 5, pp 888–893 | Cite as

Degrees of Diaphragma Sellae Descent during Transsphenoidal Pituitary Adenoma Resection: Predictive Factors and Effect on Outcome

  • Ahmed Abdelmaksoud
  • Peng Fu
  • Osamah Alwalid
  • Ahmed Elazab
  • Ahmed Zalloom
  • Wei Xiang
  • Xiao-bing Jiang
  • Hong-yang ZhaoEmail author


This study is aimed to classify degrees of diaphragma sellae (DS) descent into sella turcica according to the surgical field block caused by the descent and to construct predictive imaging criteria for the degree of descent, and in addition, to determine whether there is any correlation between the degree of DS descent and the operative outcome (in the form of cerebrospinal fluid leak and/or presence of residual tumor). Totally, 72 patients were enrolled in our study. Their clinical and radiological data as well as the high definition videos of operations were retrospectively reviewed. The degree of DS descent during the operation was classified into five degrees according to surgical field block caused by the descent. We investigated the correlation between these five degrees and the clinical findings, radiological findings as well as the surgical outcomes. We found that the most important determining factors of DS descent degree were the volume and the height of the tumor portion above diaphragma opening. On the other hand, the total tumor volume, the maximum tumor height and the morphological pattern according to Wilson’s system (modified from Hardy) had no statistically significant correlation with DS degree of descent. Presence of residual tumor on postoperative magnetic resonance images was significantly correlated with Wilson’s classification and with supradiaphragmatic tumor height. On the other hand, cerebrospinal fluid leak showed no statistically significant difference between variable degrees of DS descent. Volumetric data of the tumor portion above the diaphragma opening are more important than morphological data for prediction of surgical field block caused by descended DS. While DS prolapse significantly increases the difficulty of the operative procedure, residual tumor presence is mainly dependent on morphological classification, especially cavernous sinus invasion.

Key words

diaphragma sellae pituitary macroadenoma transsphenoidal surgery cerebrospinal fluid leak 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Matsuyama J, Kawase T, Yoshida K, et al. Management of large and giant pituitary adenomas with suprasellar extensions. Asian J Neurosurg, 2010,5(1):48–53Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Guinto Balanzar G, Abdo M, Mercado M, et al. Diaphragma sellae: A surgical reference for transsphenoidal resection of pituitary macroadenomas. World Neurosurg, 2011,75(2):286–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hendricks B, Cohen-Gadol A. Pituitary macroadenoma. Neurosurgical Atlas, Inc., 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Edward RL, Paul TB, John J. Transsphenoidal approach. In: Connolly ES, McKhann GM, Huang J, et al, eds. Fundamentals of operative techniques in neurosurgery. 2nd ed. New York: Thieme Medical, 2010:78–85Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Campero A, Martins C, Yasuda A, et al. Microsurgical anatomy of the diaphragma sellae and its role in directing the pattern of growth of pituitary adenomas. Neurosurgery, 2008,62(3):717–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lee K, Parke W, Lin S, et al. The vasculature of the diaphragma sellae: A postmortem injection study. Neuroradiology, 1978,16:281–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hornig G, Zervas N. Slit defect of the diaphragma sellae with valve effect: Observation of a “slit valve. ” Neurosurgery, 1992,30(2):265–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ferreri A, Garrido S, Markarian M, et al. Relationship between the development of diaphragma sellae and the morphology of the sella turcica and its content. Surg Radiol Anat, 1992,14(3):233–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Daniels D, Pojunas K, Kilgore D, et al. MR of the diaphragm sellae. AJNR, 1986,7(5):765–769Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wei L, Xi Z, Lin S, et al. MRI research of diaphragma sellae in patients with pituitary adenoma. Int J Clin Exp Med, 2015,8(8):12842–12849Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wilson C. Neurosurgical management of large and invasive pituitary tumors. In: Tindall G, Collins W, eds. Clinical management of pituitary disorders. New York: Raven Press, 1979:335–342Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hardy J. Transsphenoidal surgery of hypersecreting pituitary tumors. In: Kohler PO, Ross GT, eds. Diagnosis and treatment of pituitary tumors. New York: Excerpta Medica/American Elsevier, 1973:179–194Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hardy J. Transsphenoidal surgery of intracranial neoplasm. In: Thompson RA, Green R, eds. Adv Neurol. New York: Raven Press, 1976:261–274Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nolden M, Zelzer S, Seitel A, et al. The medical imaging interaction toolkit: Challenges and advances: 10 years of open-source development. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg, 2013,8(4):607–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stein D, Fritzsche KH, Nolden M, et al. The extensible open-source rigid and affine image registration module of the Medical Imaging Interaction Toolkit (MITK). Comput Methods Programs Biomed, 2010,100(1):79–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Akbari H, Malek M, Ghorbani M, et al. Clinical outcomes of endoscopic versus microscopic transsphenoidal surgery for large pituitary adenoma. Br J Neurosurg, 2018,32(2):206–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cusimano MD, Kan P, Nassiri F, et al. Outcomes of surgically treated giant pituitary tumours. Can J Neurol Sci, 2012,39(4):446–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Agrawal A, Cincu R, Goel A. Current concepts and controversies in the management of non-functioning giant pituitary macroadenomas. Clin Neurol Neurosurg, 2007,109(8):645–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cappabianca P, Cavallo LM, Esposito F, et al. Extended endoscopic endonasal approach to the midline skull base: the evolving role of transsphenoidal surgery. Adv Tech Stand Neurosurg, 2008,33:151–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McLaughlin N, Eisenberg A, Cohan P, et al. Value of endoscopy for maximizing tumor removal in endonasal transsphenoidal pituitary adenoma surgery. J Neurosurg, 2013,118(3):613–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gondim J, Almeida J, Albuquerque L, et al. Giant pituitary adenomas: surgical outcomes of 50 cases operated on by the endonasal endoscopicapproach. World Neurosurg, 2014,82(1-2):281–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Huazhong University of Science and Technology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ahmed Abdelmaksoud
    • 1
  • Peng Fu
    • 1
  • Osamah Alwalid
    • 2
  • Ahmed Elazab
    • 3
    • 4
  • Ahmed Zalloom
    • 1
  • Wei Xiang
    • 1
  • Xiao-bing Jiang
    • 1
  • Hong-yang Zhao
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Neurosurgery, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical CollegeHuazhong University of Science and TechnologyWuhanChina
  2. 2.Department of Radiology, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical CollegeHuazhong University of Science and TechnologyWuhanChina
  3. 3.School of Biomedical Engineering, Health Science CenterShenzhen UniversityShenzhenChina
  4. 4.Computer Science DepartmentMisr Higher Institute for Commerce and ComputersMansouraEgypt

Personalised recommendations