Letter to the Editor: The endoscopic endonasal approach in the treatment of olfactory groove meningiomas

Endoscopic endonasal approaches for the management of skull base meningiomas: selection criteria and clinical outcomes

BACKGROUND

Meningiomas are the most common primary intracranial tumor, arising from different locations, including the skull base. Despite advances in adjuvant treatments, surgical resection remains the main and best treatment for meningiomas. New surgical strategies, such as the endoscopic endonasal approach, have greatly contributed in achieving maximum and total safe resection, preserving the patient's neurological function.

METHODS

Based on the senior authors large experience and a review of the current literature, we have compiled this paper.

RESULTS

We review the surgical technique used at our institution and the most relevant aspects of patient selection when considering resecting a skull base meningioma using the the EEA. Further consideration is given to some skull base meningiomas arising from specific locations with some case examples.

CONCLUSIONS

The EEA is not an ideal approach for every skull base meningioma. Careful evaluation of the neurovascular structures surrounding the tumor is imperative to select the appropriate surgical corridor for a safe resection. Nevertheless, for appropriately selected cases, the endoscopic technique is a very valuable tool with some evidences of being superior to the microscopic transcranial approach. A dual-trained surgeon, in both endoscopic and transcranial approaches, is the best alternative to achieve the best patient outcome.

Supraorbital Versus Endoscopic Endonasal Approaches for Olfactory Groove Meningiomas: A Cost-Minimization Study

OBJECTIVE

To perform a cost-minimization study comparing the supraorbital and endoscopic endonasal (EEA) approach with or without craniotomy for the resection of olfactory groove meningiomas (OGMs).

METHODS

We built a decision tree using probabilities of gross total resection (GTR) and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak rates with the supraorbital approach versus EEA with and without additional craniotomy. The cost (not charge or reimbursement) at each "stem" of this decision tree for both surgical options was obtained from our hospital's finance department. After a base case calculation, we applied plausible ranges to all parameters and carried out multiple 1-way sensitivity analyses. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed our results.

RESULTS

The probabilities of GTR (0.8) and CSF leak (0.2) for the supraorbital craniotomy were obtained from our series of 5 patients who underwent a supraorbital approach for the resection of an OGM. The mean tumor volume was 54.6 cm³ (range, 17-94.2 cm³). Literature-reported rates of GTR (0.6) and CSF leak (0.3) with EEA were applied to our economic analysis. Supraorbital craniotomy was the preferred strategy, with an expected value of $29,423, compared with an EEA cost of $83,838. On multiple 1-way sensitivity analyses, supraorbital craniotomy remained the preferred strategy, with a minimum cost savings of $46,000 and a maximum savings of $64,000. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis found the lowest cost difference between the 2 surgical options to be $37,431.

CONCLUSION

Compared with EEA, supraorbital craniotomy provides substantial cost savings in the treatment of OGMs. Given the potential differences in effectiveness between approaches, a cost-effectiveness analysis should be undertaken.