Endoscopic endonasal versus transcranial approach to resection of olfactory groove meningiomas: a systematic review

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1

References

  1. 1.

    Linsler S, Keller C, Urbschat S et al (2016) Prognosis of meningiomas in the early 1970s and today. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 149:98–103

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Nakamura M, Struck M, Roser F et al (2007) Olfactory groove meningiomas: clinical outcome and recurrence rates after tumor removal through the frontolateral and bifrontal approach. Neurosurgery. 60(5):844–852

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Spektor S, Valarezo J, Fliss DM et al (2005) Olfactory groove meningiomas from neurosurgical and ear, nose, and throat perspectives: approaches, techniques, and outcomes. Neurosurgery. 57(4 Suppl):268–280

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Jho HD, Ha HG (2004) Endoscopic endonasal skull base surgery: Part 1--The midline anterior fossa skull base. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 47(1):1–8

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Gardner PA, Kassam AB, Thomas A et al (2008) Endoscopic endonasal resection of anterior cranial base meningiomas. Neurosurgery. 63(1):36–52

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Van Gompel JJ, Frank G, Pasquini E et al (2011) Expanded endonasal endoscopic resection of anterior fossa meningiomas: report of 13 cases and meta-analysis of the literature. Neurosurg Focus 30(5):E15

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    de Divitiis E, Esposito F, Cappabianca P, Cavallo LM, de Divitiis O, Esposito I (2008) Endoscopic transnasal resection of anterior cranial fossa meningiomas. Neurosurg Focus 25(6):E8

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Dehdashti AR, Ganna A, Witterick I et al (2009) Expanded endoscopic endonasal approach for anterior cranial base and suprasellar lesions: indications and limitations. Neurosurgery 64(4):677–687

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Komotar RJ, Starke RM, Raper DM, Anand VK, Schwartz TH (2012) Endoscopic endonasal versus open transcranial resection of anterior midline skull base meningiomas. World Neurosurg 77(5-6):713–724

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Shetty SR, Ruiz-Treviño AS, Omay SB et al (2017) Limitations of the endonasal endoscopic approach in treating olfactory groove meningiomas. A systematic review. Acta Neurochir 159(10):1875–1885

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    de Almeida JR (2015) Carvalho F, Vaz Guimaraes Filho F, et al. Comparison of endoscopic endonasal and bifrontal craniotomy approaches for olfactory groove meningiomas: a matched pair analysis of outcomes and frontal lobe changes on MRI. J Clin Neurosci 22(11):1733–1741

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Banu MA, Mehta A, Ottenhausen M et al (2016) Endoscope-assisted endonasal versus supraorbital keyhole resection of olfactory groove meningiomas: comparison and combination of 2 minimally invasive approaches. J Neurosurg 124(3):605–620

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Liu JK, Silva NA, Sevak IA, Eloy JA (2018) Transbasal versus endoscopic endonasal versus combined approaches for olfactory groove meningiomas: importance of approach selection. Neurosurg Focus 44(4):E8

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Muskens IS, Briceno V, Ouwehand TL et al (2018) The endoscopic endonasal approach is not superior to the microscopic transcranial approach for anterior skull base meningiomas—a meta-analysis. Acta Neurochir 160(1):59–75

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Mansouri A, Klironomos G, Taslimi S, Kilian A, Gentili F, Khan OH, Aldape K, Zadeh G (2016) Surgically resected skull base meningiomas demonstrate a divergent postoperative recurrence pattern compared with non-skull base meningiomas. J Neurosurg 125(2):431–440

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Koutourousiou M et al (2012) Endoscopic endonasal approach for resection of cranial base chordomas: outcomes and learning curve. Neurosurgery. 71(3):614–625

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Liu JK et al (2012) Surgical nuances for nasoseptal flap reconstruction of cranial base defects with high-flow cerebrospinal fluid leaks after endoscopic skull base surgery. Neurosurg Focus 32(6):E7

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Wheless SA et al (2011) Nasoseptal flap closure of traumatic cerebrospinal fluid leaks. Skull Base 21(2):93–98

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Debraj Mukherjee.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

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.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

Supplemental Digital Content [1]. Methods. Appendix A. The search strategy in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov (PDF 60 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Purohit, A., Jha, R., Khalafallah, A.M. et al. Endoscopic endonasal versus transcranial approach to resection of olfactory groove meningiomas: a systematic review. Neurosurg Rev 43, 1465–1471 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-019-01193-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Craniotomy
  • Endoscopy
  • Meningioma
  • Olfactory groove
  • Skull base