12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The endoscope-assisted supraorbital “keyhole” approach for anterior skull base meningiomas: an updated meta-analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          The gold-standard treatment for symptomatic anterior skull base meningiomas is surgical resection. The endoscope-assisted supraorbital “keyhole” approach (eSKA) is a promising technique for surgical resection of olfactory groove (OGM) and tuberculum sellae meningioma (TSM) but has yet to be compared with the microscopic transcranial (mTCA) and the expanded endoscopic endonasal approach (EEA) in the context of existing literature.

          Methods

          An updated study-level meta-analysis on surgical outcomes and complications of OGM and TSM operated with the eSKA, mTCA, and EEA was conducted using random-effect models.

          Results

          A total of 2285 articles were screened, yielding 96 studies (2191 TSM and 1510 OGM patients). In terms of effectiveness, gross total resection incidence was highest in mTCA (89.6% TSM, 91.1% OGM), followed by eSKA (85.2% TSM, 84.9% OGM) and EEA (83.9% TSM, 82.8% OGM). Additionally, the EEA group had the highest incidence of visual improvement (81.9% TSM, 54.6% OGM), followed by eSKA (65.9% TSM, 52.9% OGM) and mTCA (63.9% TSM, 45.7% OGM). However, in terms of safety, the EEA possessed the highest cerebrospinal fluid leak incidence (9.2% TSM, 14.5% OGM), compared with eSKA (2.1% TSM, 1.6% OGM) and mTCA (1.6% TSM, 6.5% OGM). Finally, mortality and intraoperative arterial injury were 1% or lower across all subgroups.

          Conclusions

          In the context of diverse study populations, the eSKA appeared not to be associated with increased adverse outcomes when compared with mTCA and EEA and offered comparable effectiveness. Case-selection is paramount in establishing a role for the eSKA in anterior skull base tumours.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (10.1007/s00701-020-04544-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references123

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis.

            The extent of heterogeneity in a meta-analysis partly determines the difficulty in drawing overall conclusions. This extent may be measured by estimating a between-study variance, but interpretation is then specific to a particular treatment effect metric. A test for the existence of heterogeneity exists, but depends on the number of studies in the meta-analysis. We develop measures of the impact of heterogeneity on a meta-analysis, from mathematical criteria, that are independent of the number of studies and the treatment effect metric. We derive and propose three suitable statistics: H is the square root of the chi2 heterogeneity statistic divided by its degrees of freedom; R is the ratio of the standard error of the underlying mean from a random effects meta-analysis to the standard error of a fixed effect meta-analytic estimate, and I2 is a transformation of (H) that describes the proportion of total variation in study estimates that is due to heterogeneity. We discuss interpretation, interval estimates and other properties of these measures and examine them in five example data sets showing different amounts of heterogeneity. We conclude that H and I2, which can usually be calculated for published meta-analyses, are particularly useful summaries of the impact of heterogeneity. One or both should be presented in published meta-analyses in preference to the test for heterogeneity. Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found

              The 2016 World Health Organization Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System: a summary.

              The 2016 World Health Organization Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System is both a conceptual and practical advance over its 2007 predecessor. For the first time, the WHO classification of CNS tumors uses molecular parameters in addition to histology to define many tumor entities, thus formulating a concept for how CNS tumor diagnoses should be structured in the molecular era. As such, the 2016 CNS WHO presents major restructuring of the diffuse gliomas, medulloblastomas and other embryonal tumors, and incorporates new entities that are defined by both histology and molecular features, including glioblastoma, IDH-wildtype and glioblastoma, IDH-mutant; diffuse midline glioma, H3 K27M-mutant; RELA fusion-positive ependymoma; medulloblastoma, WNT-activated and medulloblastoma, SHH-activated; and embryonal tumour with multilayered rosettes, C19MC-altered. The 2016 edition has added newly recognized neoplasms, and has deleted some entities, variants and patterns that no longer have diagnostic and/or biological relevance. Other notable changes include the addition of brain invasion as a criterion for atypical meningioma and the introduction of a soft tissue-type grading system for the now combined entity of solitary fibrous tumor / hemangiopericytoma-a departure from the manner by which other CNS tumors are graded. Overall, it is hoped that the 2016 CNS WHO will facilitate clinical, experimental and epidemiological studies that will lead to improvements in the lives of patients with brain tumors.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                danyal.khan@nhs.net
                Journal
                Acta Neurochir (Wien)
                Acta Neurochir (Wien)
                Acta Neurochirurgica
                Springer Vienna (Vienna )
                0001-6268
                0942-0940
                5 September 2020
                5 September 2020
                : 1-16
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.5335.0, ISNI 0000000121885934, Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, , University of Cambridge, ; Cambridge, UK
                [2 ]Department of Neurosurgery, Haaglanden Medical Center and Leiden University Medical Center, The Hague, The Netherlands
                [3 ]GRID grid.62560.37, ISNI 0000 0004 0378 8294, Computational Neurosciences Outcomes Center, Department of Neurosurgery, , Brigham and Women’s Hospital, ; Boston, MA USA
                [4 ]GRID grid.416498.6, ISNI 0000 0001 0021 3995, Department of Pharmaceutical Business and Administrative Sciences, School of Pharmacy, , MCPHS University, ; Boston, MA USA
                [5 ]GRID grid.10419.3d, ISNI 0000000089452978, Department of Neurosurgery, University Neurosurgical Centre Holland, Leiden University Medical Centre, , Haaglanden Medical Centre and Haga Teaching Hospital, ; Leiden, and The Hague, The Netherlands
                [6 ]ENDOMIN - Center for Endoscopic and Minimally Invasive Neurosurgery, Hirslanden Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland
                [7 ]GRID grid.38142.3c, ISNI 000000041936754X, Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, , Harvard Medical School, ; Boston, MA USA
                [8 ]GRID grid.436283.8, ISNI 0000 0004 0612 2631, Department of Neurosurgery, , National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, ; London, UK
                [9 ]GRID grid.83440.3b, ISNI 0000000121901201, Wellcome/EPSRC Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences, , University College London, ; London, UK
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9213-2550
                Article
                4544
                10.1007/s00701-020-04544-x
                7474310
                32889640
                6685f9ce-6c0c-42e7-8334-c0c6114160f8
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 3 June 2020
                : 16 August 2020
                Categories
                Original Article - Tumor - Meningioma

                Surgery
                endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery,microscopic transcranial surgery,supraorbital keyhole,skull base surgery,tuberculum sellae meningioma,olfactory groove meningioma

                Comments

                Comment on this article