Immediate postoperative complications of sellar suprasellar lesions operated via pterional approach

  • Hamayun Tahir Senior Registrar ,Department of Neurosurgery Qazi Hussain Ahmed Medical complex Mti Nowshera /Nowshera Medical College Nowshera
  • Zulfiqar Ali Shah
  • Naseer Hassan
  • Muhammad Ayaz
  • Mumtaz Ali
  • Farooq Azam hamayun_tahir@ymail.com
  • Samina Feroz
Keywords: sellar lesions, CSF leak, diabetes insipidus

Abstract

Objective:  In neurosurgical facilities, lesions that occur in the sella turcica and suprasellar area are frequently encountered. Different complications have been documented in the past studies following surgical management of sellar suprasellar lesions. This study's rationale was to get data from our local population on complications related to the transcranial approach for sellar suprasellar lesions. The study aimed to determine the immediate (within one week) postoperative complications of sellar suprasellar lesions operated via a pterional approach

Material and Methods:  This descriptive case series study was conducted from June 2019 to June 2020 at the neurosurgical facility lady reading hospital Peshawar. A total of 117 patients, meeting inclusion criteria irrespective of gender, diagnosed with the sellar suprasellar lesion between 18 to 60 years of age operated through a pterional approach. Post-op patients were followed for seven days to access main outcome measures such as CSF leak and diabetes insipidus.

Results:  CSF leak found in 7.7% (n = 9) of patients while diabetes insipidus was detected in 14.5% (n = 17) patients. Gender and age-based stratification showed no statistically significant difference for both postoperative complications.

Conclusion:  Diabetes insipidus was a more frequent postoperative complication in patients undergoing the pterional approach for sellar suprasellar lesions followed by CSF leak. However, no statistically significant correlation was observed between different age groups and gender for all these complications.

References

1. Zhao C, Chen Z, Xu N, Xue T, Wu X, You W, et al. Comparative analysis on microsurgical removal of craniopharyngioma via lateral supraorbital approach and standard pterional approach. Chinese Neurosurg J. 2018; 4: 16.
2. Tullos HJ, Conner AK, Baker CM, Briggs RG, Burks JD, Glenn CA, et al. Mini-Pterional Craniotomy for Resection of Parasellar Meningiomas. World Neurosurg. 2018; 117: e637–44.
3. Tamasauskas A, Bunevicius A, Matukevicius A, Radziunas A, Urbonas M, Deltuva V. Extended pterional approach for initial surgical management of craniopharyngiomas: a case series. Turk Neurosurg. 2014; 24 (2): 174–83.
4. Day JD. Surgical approaches to suprasellar and parasellar tumors. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2003; 14 (1): 109–22.
5. Liu JK, Weiss MH, Couldwell WT. Surgical approaches to pituitary tumors. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2003; 14 (1): 93–107.
6. Samandouras G, Kerr RSC, Milford CA. Minimally invasive biopsy of parasellar lesions: safety and clinical applications of the endoscopic, transnasal approach. Br J Neurosurg. 2005; 19 (4): 338–44.
7. Samii M, Gerganov VM. Surgery of extra-axial tumors of the cerebral base. Neurosurgery, 2008; 62 (6 Suppl. 3): 1153–8.
8. Aydin IH, Takci E, Kadioglu HH, Kayaoglu CR, Tüzün Y. Pitfalls in the pterional approach to the parasellar area (review). Minim Invasive Neurosurg. 1995; 38 (4): 146–52.
9. Figueiredo EG, Oliveira AMP, Plese JPP, Teixeira MJ. Perspective of the frontolateral craniotomies. Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 2010; 68 (3): 430–2.
10. Kim E, Delashaw Jr JB. Osteoplastic pterional craniotomy revisited. Operative Neurosurgery, 2011; 68 (suppl_1): ons125-9.
11. Liu H-C, Wu Z, Wang L, Xiao X-R, Li D, Jia W, et al. Frontolateral Approach Applied to Sellar Region Lesions: A Retrospective Study in 79 Patients. Chin Med J (Engl). 2016; 129 (13): 1558–64.
12. Pintea B, Mogyoros A, Andrasoni Z, Florian IS. Fronto-temporal approach in sellar and parasellar tumors. Romanian Neurosurgery, 2013; 15: 80-91.
13. Shi X, Wang Z. [Experience in surgical treatment of 110 patients with craniopharyngiomas]. Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2001; 39 (8): 608–10.
14. Zhang Y, Xu B, Jiang J, Feng S, Bu B, Zhou T, et al. [Treatment for giant pituitary adenomas through transcranial approach in a series of 112 consecutive patients]. Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2015; 53 (3): 197–201.
15. Li H-Y, Feng C-Y, Zhang C, Su J, Yuan J, Xie Y, et al. Microscopic surgery for pituitary adenomas to preserve the pituitary gland and stalk. Exp Ther Med. 2017; 13 (3): 1011–6.
16. Dusick JR, Fatemi N, Mattozo C, McArthur D, Cohan P, Wang C, et al. Pituitary function after endonasal surgery for nonadenomatous parasellar tumors: Rathke’s cleft cysts, craniopharyngiomas, and meningiomas. Surg Neurol. 2008; 70 (5): 481–2.
17. Komotar RJ, Roguski M, Bruce JN. Surgical management of craniopharyngiomas. J Neurooncol. 2009; 92 (3): 283–96.
18. Honegger J, Tatagiba M. Craniopharyngioma surgery. Pituitary, 2008; 11 (4): 361–73.
19. Elliott RE, Wisoff JH. Surgical management of giant pediatric craniopharyngiomas. J Neurosurg Pediatr PED. 6 (5): 403–16.
20. Wang K-C, Kim S-K, Choe G, Chi JG, Cho B-K. Growth patterns of craniopharyngioma in children: role of the diaphragm sellae and its surgical implication. Surg Neurol. 2002; 57 (1): 25–33.
21. Yaşargil MG, Curcic M, Kis M, Siegenthaler G, Teddy PJ, Roth P. Total removal of craniopharyngiomas. Approaches and long-term results in 144 patients. J Neurosurg. 1990; 73 (1): 3–11.
22. Deng HS, Ding ZQ, Zhang SF, Fa ZQ, Wang QH. Surgical therapeutic strategy for giant pituitary adenomas. Biomed Res. 2017; 28 (19): 8284–8.
23. Mahmoud M, Nader R, Al-Mefty O. Optic canal
involvement in tuberculum sellae meningiomas: influence on approach, recurrence, and visual recovery. Neurosurgery, 2010; 67 (3 Suppl. Operative): ons108-18; Discussion Ons118-9.
24. Goel A, Muzumdar D, Desai KI. Tuberculum sellae meningioma: a report on management on the basis of a surgical experience with 70 patients. Neurosurgery, 2002; 51 (6): 1354–8.
25. Raza SM, Effendi ST, DeMonte F. Tuberculum Sellae Meningiomas: Evolving Surgical Strategies. Curr Surg Reports, 2014; 2 (11): 73.
Published
2022-01-05
Section
Original Articles