Advertisement

18 Suprasellar Craniopharyngiomas

  • William T. CouldwellEmail author
  • Daniel F. Kelly
  • James K. Liu
Chapter

Abstract

Craniopharyngioma tumors are histologically benign, but their management remains challenging because of their intimate relationship to vital neurovascular structures such as the optic apparatus, pituitary stalk, hypothalamus, and vessels of the circle of Willis. Surgery remains the mainstay of suprasellar craniopharyngioma management. Although total resection should be the goal, a subtotal resection with postoperative radiation is a reasonable option if the lesion is adherent to the hypothalamus or other eloquent midline structures. Open transcranial approaches are the standard of care for surgical intervention, which have stood the test of time. More recently, minimally invasive transcranial keyhole approaches and endoscopic endonasal approaches have been added to the armamentarium of skull base neurosurgeons. In 18.2, we discuss the options available for open transcranial approaches to craniopharyngioma tumors and consider their relative merits and limitations, patient selection criteria, perioperative care, complication avoidance, management principles, and surgical outcomes. No single operative technique can be considered as the “best approach” for all patients. Each patient is best served by the formulation of an individualized, tailored surgical plan that aims to realistically and safely achieve the expected management goals. The supraorbital “eyebrow” craniotomy is an ideal approach for those tumors that are anterior or superior to the optic apparatus, and we discuss this in 18.3. Meticulous attention to detail during the approach and tumor dissection as well as the closure will help achieve good tumor resection, minimize morbidity, and maintain cosmesis. The use of surgical tools such as the micro-Doppler probe and neuroendoscopy are helpful to visualize and preserve critical neurovascular structures. Attentive postoperative management is necessary for good long-term outcomes with close monitoring and treatment of endocrinopathies. The use of stereotactic radiation therapy and targeted molecular therapy should be utilized as necessary.

Recently, there has been increased application of the endoscopic endonasal approach for these tumors. In appropriately selected cases, the endoscopic endonasal approach offers excellent direct visualization of the undersurface of the optic chiasm and its vascular perforators, hypothalamus, and third ventricle, which contributes to safer microdissection and a more complete removal while minimizing potential complications. In 18.4, we review the technical nuances and surgical pearls for resection of suprasellar craniopharyngiomas using the endoscopic endonasal approach. We also discuss factors involved in approach selection and complication avoidance.

Keywords

Craniopharyngioma Open transcranial approaches Technical nuances Surgical outcomes Keyhole craniotomy Eyebrow craniotomy Supraorbital craniotomy Pituitary tumor Hypopituitarism Optic nerve Vision preservation Retrochiasmatic Endoscopic skull base surgery Endoscopic endonasal approach Microsurgical transcranial approach 

References (Key References Bolded)

  1. 1.
    Hoffman HJ. Surgical management of craniopharyngioma. Pediatr Neurosurg. 1994;21(Suppl 1):44–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bunin GR, et al. The descriptive epidemiology of craniopharyngioma. Neurosurg Focus. 1997;3(6):e1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pan J, et al. Growth patterns of craniopharyngiomas: clinical analysis of 226 patients. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2016;17(4):418–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alli S, Isik S, Rutka JT. Microsurgical removal of craniopharyngioma: endoscopic and transcranial techniques for complication avoidance. J Neuro-Oncol. 2016 Nov;130(2):299–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Komotar RJ, Roguski M, Bruce JN. Surgical management of craniopharyngiomas. J Neurooncol. 2009 May;92(3):283–96. Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zada G, Laws ER. Surgical management of craniopharyngiomas in the pediatric population. Horm Res Paediatr. 2010;74(1):62–6. Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jung TY, Jung S, Choi JE, et al. Adult craniopharyngiomas: surgical results with a special focus on endocrinological outcomes and recurrence according to pituitary stalk preservation. J Neurosurg. 2009 Sep;111(3):572–7. Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Elliott RE, Jane JA, Jr., Wisoff JH. Surgical management of craniopharyngiomas in children: meta-analysis and comparison of transcranial and transsphenoidal approaches. Neurosurgery. 2011 Sep;69(3):630–43. Discussion 43.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    McLaughlin N, Ditzel Filho L, Shahlaie K, Solari D, Kassam A, Kelly D. The supraorbital approach for recurrent or residual suprasellar tumors. Minim Invasive Neurosurg. 2011;54(04):155–161. Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kassam A, Gardner P, Snyderman C, Carrau R, Mintz A, Prevedello D. Expanded endonasal approach, a fully endoscopic transnasal approach for the resection of midline suprasellar craniopharyngiomas: a new classification based on the infundibulum. J Neurosurg. 2008;108(4):715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Barkhoudarian G, Cutler AR, Yost S, Lobo B, Eisenberg A, Kelly DF. Impact of selective pituitary gland incision or resection on hormonal function after adenoma or cyst resection. Pituitary. 2015;18(6):868–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Koutourousiou M, Gardner P, Fernandez-Miranda J, Tyler-Kabara E, Wang E, Snyderman C. Endoscopic endonasal surgery for craniopharyngiomas: surgical outcome in 64 patients. J Neurosurg. 2013;119(5):1194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dlouhy B, Madhavan K, Clinger J, et al. Elevated body mass index and risk of postoperative CSF leak following transsphenoidal surgery. J Neurosurg. 2012;116(6):1311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ivan M, Iorgulescu J, El-Sayed I, et al. Risk factors for postoperative cerebrospinal fluid leak and meningitis after expanded endoscopic endonasal surgery. J Clin Neurosci. 2015;22(1):48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    LeVay A, Kveton J. Relationship between obesity, obstructive sleep apnea, and spontaneous cerebrospinal fluid otorrhea. Laryngoscope. 2008;118(2):275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dare A, Landi M, Lopes D, Grand W. Eyebrow incision for combined orbital osteotomy and supraorbital minicraniotomy: application to aneurysms of the anterior circulation. J Neurosurg. 2001;95(4):714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Figueiredo E, Deshmukh V, Nakaji P, et al. An anatomical evaluation of the mini-supraorbital approach and comparison with standard craniotomies. Neurosurgery. 2006;59(4 Suppl 2):ONS212. Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kobayashi T, Kida Y, Mori Y, Hasegawa T. Long-term results of gamma knife surgery for the treatment of craniopharyngioma in 98 consecutive cases. J Neurosurg. 2005;103(6):482–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stripp D, Maity A, Janss A, et al. Surgery with or without radiation therapy in the management of craniopharyngiomas in children and young adults. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;58(3):714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Komotar R, Starke R, Raper D, Anand V, Schwartz T. Endoscopic endonasal compared with microscopic transsphenoidal and open transcranial resection of craniopharyngiomas. World Neurosurg. 2012;77(2):329. Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sheehan J, Niranjan A, Sheehan J, et al. Stereotactic radiosurgery for pituitary adenomas: an intermediate review of its safety, efficacy, and role in the neurosurgical treatment armamentarium. J Neurosurg. 2005;102(4):678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gopalan R, Dassoulas K, Rainey J, Sherman J, Sheehan J. Evaluation of the role of Gamma Knife surgery in the treatment of craniopharyngiomas. Neurosurg Focus. 2008;24(5):E5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Reisch R, Marcus H, Hugelshofer M, Koechlin N, Stadie A, Kockro R. Patients’ cosmetic satisfaction, pain, and functional outcomes after supraorbital craniotomy through an eyebrow incision. J Neurosurg. 2014;121(3):730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Reisch R, Perneczky A. Ten-year experience with the supraorbital subfrontal approach through an eyebrow skin incision. Neurosurgery. 2005;57(4 Suppl):242. Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Park J, Jung T, Kang D, Lee S. Preoperative percutaneous mapping of the frontal branch of the facial nerve to assess the risk of frontalis muscle palsy after a supraorbital keyhole approach. J Neurosurg. 2013;118(5):1114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dusick J, Esposito F, Malkasian D, Kelly D. Avoidance of carotid artery injuries in transsphenoidal surgery with the Doppler probe and micro-hook blades. Neurosurgery. 2007;60(4 Suppl 2):322.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Oskouian R, Kelly D, Laws E Jr. Vascular injury and transsphenoidal surgery. Front Horm Res. 2006;34:256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yaşargil M, Curcic M, Kis M, Siegenthaler G, Teddy P, Roth P. Total removal of craniopharyngiomas. Approaches and long-term results in 144 patients. J Neurosurg. 1990;73(1):3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Vinchon M, Weill J, Delestret I, Dhellemmes P. Craniopharyngioma and hypothalamic obesity in children. Child Nerv Syst. 2009;25(3):347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wilson D, Duong H, Teo C, Kelly D. The supraorbital endoscopic approach for tumors. World Neurosurg. 2014;82(6 Suppl):S72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ditzel FL, McLaughlin N, Bresson D, Solari D, Kassam A, Kelly D. Supraorbital eyebrow craniotomy for removal of intraaxial frontal brain tumors: a technical note. World Neurosurg. 2014;81(2):348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Paladino J, Mrak G, Miklić P, Jednacak H, Mihaljević D. The keyhole concept in aneurysm surgery – a comparative study: keyhole versus standard craniotomy. Minim Invasive Neurosurg. 2005;48(5):251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Cohen A, Perneczky A, Rodziewicz G, Gingold S. Endoscope-assisted craniotomy: approach to the rostral brain stem. Neurosurgery. 1995;36(6):1128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Fatemi N, Dusick J, de Paiva NM, Malkasian D, Kelly D. Endonasal versus supraorbital keyhole removal of craniopharyngiomas and tuberculum sellae meningiomas. Neurosurgery. 2009;64(5 Suppl 2):269. Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Liu JK, Sevak IA, Carmel PW, Eloy JA. Microscopic versus endoscopic approaches for craniopharyngiomas: choosing the optimal surgical corridor for maximizing extent of resection and complication avoidance using a personalized, tailored approach. Neurosurg Focus. 2016 Dec;41(6):E5. Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Baldauf J, Hosemann W, Schroeder HW. Endoscopic endonasal approach for craniopharyngiomas. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2015;26:363–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Liu JK, Christiano LD, Patel SK, Eloy JA. Surgical nuances for removal of retrochiasmatic craniopharyngioma via the endoscopic endonasal extended transsphenoidal transplanum transtuberculum approach. Neurosurg Focus. 2011 Apr;30(4):E14. Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Oldfield EH. Transnasal endoscopic surgery for craniopharyngiomas. Neurosurg Focus. 2010 Apr;28(4):E8a. Discussion E8b.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Dhandapani S, et al. Endonasal endoscopic reoperation for residual or recurrent craniopharyngiomas. J Neurosurg. 2017;126:418–430. Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Komotar RJ, Starke RM, Raper DM, Anand VK, Schwartz TH. Endoscopic endonasal compared with microscopic transsphenoidal and open transcranial resection of craniopharyngiomas. World Neurosurg. 2012;77:329–41. Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Liu JK, Schmidt RF, Choudhry OJ, Shukla PA, Eloy JA. Surgical nuances for nasoseptal flap reconstruction of cranial base defects with high-flow cerebrospinal fluid leaks after endoscopic skull base surgery. Neurosurg Focus. 2012;32:E7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Zacharia BE, Amine M, Anand V, Schwartz TH. Endoscopic endonasal management of craniopharyngioma. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2016;49:201–12. Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Cavallo LM, et al. The endoscopic endonasal approach for the management of craniopharyngiomas: a series of 103 patients. J Neurosurg. 2014;121:100–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • William T. Couldwell
    • 1
    Email author
  • Daniel F. Kelly
    • 2
  • James K. Liu
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of NeurosurgeryUniversity of Utah HospitalSalt Lake CityUSA
  2. 2.Pacific Neuroscience Institute, John Wayne Cancer InstituteSanta MonicaUSA
  3. 3.Center for Skull Base and Pituitary Surgery, Departments of Neurological Surgery and Otolaryngology/Head and Neck SurgeryRutgers University New Jersey Medical SchoolNewarkUSA

Personalised recommendations