Open Transcranial Resection of Small (<35 mm) Meningiomas of the Anterior Midline Skull Base in Current Microsurgical Practice

Improvement in visual outcomes of patients with base of skull meningioma as a result of evolution in the treatment techniques in the last three decades: a systematic review

PURPOSE

We systematically reviewed visual outcomes over the last three decades in patients undergoing treatment for base of skull (BOS) meningiomas and provide recommendations to preserve vision.

METHODS

In accordance with the PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews, a search was conducted from 6/1/2022-9/1/2022 using PubMed and Web of Science. Inclusion criteria included (1) patients treated for BOS meningiomas (2) treatment modality specified (3) specifics of surgical techniques and/or dose/fractions of radiotherapy (4) individual patient outcomes of treatment. Each study was assessed for bias based on study design and heterogeneity of results.

RESULTS

A total of 50 studies were included (N = 2911). When comparing improved vision versus unchanged or worsened vision, studies investigating surgery alone published from 2006 and onward had significantly better visual outcomes compared to pre-2006 studies (p = 0.02). When comparing improved vision versus unchanged or worsened vision, studies investigating combined therapy with surgery and radiation published from 2008 and onward had significantly better visual outcomes compared to pre-2008 studies (p < 0.01). Combined modality therapy was less likely to worsen vision compared to either surgery or radiation monotherapy (p < 0.01). However, surgery and radiation monotherapy were more likely to actually improve outcomes compared to combination therapy (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

For over a decade we have observed improvement in visual outcomes in patients managed for meningioma of BOS, likely attributing the innovation in microsurgical and more targeted and conformal radiation techniques. Combination therapy may be the safest option for preventing worsening of vision, but the highest rates of improving visual function are achieved through monotherapy when indicated.

Olfactory Groove Meningiomas: Comprehensive assessment between the different microsurgical transcranial approaches and the Endoscopic Endonasal Approaches, systematic review and metanalysis on behalf of the EANS skull base section

•OGM surgery is much more complex than a simple debate of "from above or from below" (transcranial vs endoscopic).•Lateral Sub-frontal and Superior Interhemispheric seem the most effective, superior and versatile approaches for OGM.•Minimally Invasive Transcranial approaches showed no inferiority in OGM sized <4 ​cm.•Endoscopic Endonasal Approaches showed inferior results in surgical and in functional outcomes for OGM.

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

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.

The endoscopic endonasal approach is not superior to the microscopic transcranial approach for anterior skull base meningiomas-a meta-analysis

Object

In the past decade, the endonasal transsphenoidal approach (eTSA) has become an alternative to the microsurgical transcranial approach (mTCA) for tuberculum sellae meningiomas (TSMs) and olfactory groove meningiomas (OGMs). The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate which approach offered the best surgical outcomes.

Methods

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

Results

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.

Conclusion

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

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00701-017-3390-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Limitations of the endonasal endoscopic approach in treating olfactory groove meningiomas. A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To review current management strategies for olfactory groove meningioma (OGM)s and the recent literature comparing endoscopic endonasal (EEA) with traditional transcranial (TCA) approaches.

METHODS

A PubMed search of the recent literature (2011-2016) was performed to examine outcomes following EEA and TCA for OGM. The extent of resection, visual outcome, postoperative complications and recurrence rates were analyzed using percentages and proportions, the Fischer exact test and the Student's t-test using Graphpad PRISM 7.0Aa (San Diego, CA) software.

RESULTS

There were 444 patients in the TCA group with a mean diameter of 4.61 (±1.17) cm and 101 patients in the EEA group with a mean diameter of 3.55 (± 0.58) cm (p = 0.0589). GTR was achieved in 90.9% (404/444) in the TCA group and 70.2% (71/101) in the EEA group (p < 0.0001). Of the patients with preoperative visual disturbances, 80.7% (21/26) of patients in the EEA cohort had an improvement in vision compared to 12.83%(29/226) in the TCA group (p < 0.0001). Olfaction was lost in 61% of TCA and in 100% of EEA patients. CSF leaks and meningitis occurred in 25.7% and 4.95% of EEA patients and 6.3% and 1.12% of TCA patients, respectively (p < 0.0001; p = 0.023).

CONCLUSIONS

Our updated literature review demonstrates that despite more experience with endoscopic resection and skull base reconstruction, the literature still supports TCA over EEA with respect to the extent of resection and complications. EEA may be an option in selected cases where visual improvement is the main goal of surgery and postoperative anosmia is acceptable to the patient or in medium-sized tumors with existing preoperative anosmia. Nevertheless, based on our results, it seems more prudent at this time to use TCA for the majority of OGMs.

The role of prophylactic antiepileptic drugs for seizure prophylaxis in meningioma surgery: A systematic review

Meningiomas are the commonest type of primary brain tumours. Whilst most patients are seizure-free prior to surgery, antiepileptic drugs are frequently administered to reduce the risk of developing post-operative seizures. However, evidence to support their efficacy in providing this outcome is sparse. To this end, we performed a systematic review to assess the impact of prophylactic antiepileptic drugs on post-operative epilepsy rates in seizure-naïve patients undergoing craniotomy for resection of meningiomas. The literature search was performed using PubMed for studies published between January 1990 and November 2016. The total number of patients in each study was extracted and divided into cohorts according to administration of prophylactic antiepileptic drugs. Clinical characteristics, study type and post-operative epilepsy rates were recorded. A total of 11 studies involving 1143 patients met the selection criteria. There was no statistically significant difference in the number of patients who developed post-operative epilepsy in the cohort that received prophylactic antiepileptic drugs (20 of 766; 2.6%) and the cohort that did not (10 of 377; 2.7%) (Chi-square test; P=0.96). A detailed meta-analysis could not be performed due to the insufficiency in data reported. Based on the results of this systematic review, the routine use of antiepileptic drugs for seizure prophylaxis in seizure-naïve patients undergoing meningioma resection could not be substantiated. However, limitations of a systematic review should be considered on interpretation. High quality prospective randomised controlled trials are required to definitively answer this important clinical question.