User Tools

Site Tools


Anterior skull base meningioma treatment


Systematic review

A systematic review of the literature from 2004 and meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines for Anterior skull base meningiomas. Pooled incidence was calculated for gross total resection (GTR), visual improvement, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak, intraoperative arterial injury, and mortality, comparing endonasal transsphenoidal approach (eTSA) and microsurgical transcranial approach (mTCA), with p-interaction values.

Of 1684 studies, 64 case series were included in the meta-analysis. Using the fixed-effects model, the GTR rate was significantly higher among mTCA patients for OGM (eTSA: 70.9% vs. mTCA: 88.5%, p-interaction < 0.01), but not significantly higher for TSM (eTSA: 83.0% vs. mTCA: 85.8%, p-interaction = 0.34). Despite considerable heterogeneity, visual improvement was higher for eTSA than mTCA for TSM (p-interaction < 0.01), but not for OGM (p-interaction = 0.33). CSF leak was significantly higher among eTSA patients for both OGM (eTSA: 25.1% vs. mTCA: 10.5%, p-interaction < 0.01) and TSM (eTSA: 19.3%, vs. mTCA: 5.81%, p-interaction < 0.01). Intraoperative arterial injury was higher among eTSA (4.89%) than mTCA patients (1.86%) for TSM (p-interaction = 0.03), but not for OGM resection (p-interaction = 0.10). Mortality was not significantly different between eTSA and mTCA patients for both TSM (p-interaction = 0.14) and OGM resection (p-interaction = 0.88). Random-effect models yielded similar results.

In this meta-analysis, eTSA was not shown to be superior to mTCA for resection of both OGMs and TSMs 1)


Surgical resection is the main treatment option for tumors that are symptomatic and/or growing. Recurrence is directly related to the extent of resection of the tumor, the dural attachment, and pathologic bone.

The Endoscopic transsphenoidal approach has become an alternative to the microsurgical transcranial approach (mTCA) for tuberculum sellae meningiomas (TSMs) and olfactory groove meningiomas (OGMs), and represent an important addition to the treatment armamentarium for skull base meningiomas 2).

Small and midsize olfactory groove, planum sphenoidale, and tuberculum sellae meningiomas can be removed via an endonasal endoscopic approach, an alternative option to the transcranial microsurgical approach. The choice of approach depends on tumor size and location, involvement of important neurovascular structures, and, most importantly, the surgeon's preference and experience. In most meningiomas, the endonasal approach has no advantage compared with the transcranial approach. Disadvantages of the endonasal approach are the discomfort after surgery and the prolonged recovery phase because of the nasal morbidity, which requires intensive nasal care. Compared with the eyebrow approach, the trauma to the nasal cavity, paranasal sinuses, and skull base is greater, and the risk of cerebrospinal fluid leak is higher.

The endoscope-assisted microsurgical transcranial approach which combines the advantages of the operating microscope with the advantages of the endoscope. The endonasal approach is beneficial for small tumors located below or behind the chiasm 3).

Anterior cranial base meningiomas have traditionally been addressed via frontal or frontolateral approaches. However, with the advances in endoscopic endonasal treatment of pituitary lesions, the transphenoidal approach is being expanded to address lesions of the petrous ridge, anterior clinoid, clivus, sella, parasellar region, tuberculum, planum, olfactory groove, and crista galli regions. The expanded endoscopic endonasal approach (EEEA) has the advantage of limiting brain retraction and resultant brain edema, as well as minimizing manipulation of neural structures. Prosser et al. described the techniques of transclival, transphenoidal, transplanum, and transcribiform resections of anterior skull base meningiomas 4).

The complete resection of meningiomas with intra-extracranial extension was achieved in all patients of the series of Wang et al using endoscopic endonasal approach in one stage 5).

Muskens IS, Briceno V, Ouwehand TL, Castlen JP, Gormley WB, Aglio LS, Zamanipoor Najafabadi AH, van Furth WR, Smith TR, Mekary RA, Broekman MLD. The endoscopic endonasal approach is not superior to the microscopic transcranial approach for anterior skull base meningiomas-a meta-analysis. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2017 Nov 10. doi: 10.1007/s00701-017-3390-y. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 29127655.
Abbassy M, Woodard TD, Sindwani R, Recinos PF. An Overview of Anterior Skull Base Meningiomas and the Endoscopic Endonasal Approach. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2016 Feb;49(1):141-52. doi: 10.1016/j.otc.2015.08.002. Review. PubMed PMID: 26614834.
Schroeder HW. Indications and limitations of the endoscopic endonasal approach for anterior cranial base meningiomas. World Neurosurg. 2014 Dec;82(6 Suppl):S81-5. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2014.07.030. Review. PubMed PMID: 25496640.
Prosser JD, Vender JR, Alleyne CH, Solares CA. Expanded endoscopic endonasal approaches to skull base meningiomas. J Neurol Surg B Skull Base. 2012 Jun;73(3):147-56. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1301391. PubMed PMID: 23730542; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3424012.
Wang ZL, Zhang QH, Guo HC, Kong F, Chen G, Bao YH, Ling F. [Early experience of resection of meningiomas in anterior skull base with intra-extracranial extension via a pure endoscopic endonasal approach]. Zhonghua Er Bi Yan Hou Tou Jing Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2013 Oct;48(10):807-13. Chinese. PubMed PMID: 24406176.
anterior_skull_base_meningioma_treatment.txt · Last modified: 2019/08/06 12:04 by administrador