scholarly journals Use of a side-cutting aspiration device for resection of tumors during endoscopic endonasal approaches

2011 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. E13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victor Garcia-Navarro ◽  
Guido Lancman ◽  
Amancio Guerrero-Maldonado ◽  
Vijay K. Anand ◽  
Theodore H. Schwartz

Object Accessing intra- and extradural tumors via an endonasal approach requires working safely in a relatively narrow area with unobstructed visibility. The authors describe their experience to highlight the utility of a side-cutting aspiration device for endoscopic endonasal resection of skull base tumors. Methods The authors used this device in 13 nonconsecutive endoscopic endonasal procedures for different skull base tumors (8 pituitary macroadenomas, 2 craniopharyngiomas, 1 chordoma, 1 recurrent ependymoma, and 1 lymphoma). Illustrative cases and video are presented to demonstrate its use. Results The instrument was easy to use and effective in the removal of the lesions presented in this series. In 10 patients (77%), gross-total resection was possible; in the other 3 patients (23%), more than 80% of the tumor was resected. No collateral tissue damage or any other complication resulted from device-related debulking or aspiration. Conclusions The side-cutting tissue resector is a safe, easy to use, and effective tool for internal debulking and extracapsular dissection of nonvascularized tumors that are too firm for bimanual suction or blunt ring curette dissection. It is particularly useful when working through a deep and narrow corridor such as is encountered in endoscopic endonasal skull base surgery.

2013 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 227-241 ◽  
Author(s):  
Srinivas Chivukula ◽  
Maria Koutourousiou ◽  
Carl H. Snyderman ◽  
Juan C. Fernandez-Miranda ◽  
Paul A. Gardner ◽  
...  

Object The use of endoscopic endonasal surgery (EES) for skull base pathologies in the pediatric population presents unique challenges and has not been well described. The authors reviewed their experience with endoscopic endonasal approaches in pediatric skull base surgery to assess surgical outcomes and complications in the context of presenting patient demographics and pathologies. Methods A retrospective review of 133 pediatric patients who underwent EES at our institution from July 1999 to May 2011 was performed. Results A total of 171 EESs were performed for skull base tumors in 112 patients and bony lesions in 21. Eighty-five patients (63.9%) were male, and the mean age at the time of surgery was 12.7 years (range 2.3–18.0 years). Skull base tumors included angiofibromas (n = 24), craniopharyngiomas (n = 16), Rathke cleft cysts (n = 12), pituitary adenomas (n = 11), chordomas/chondrosarcomas (n = 10), dermoid/epidermoid tumors (n = 9), and 30 other pathologies. In total, 19 tumors were malignant (17.0%). Among patients with follow-up data, gross-total resection was achieved in 16 cases of angiofibromas (76.2%), 9 of craniopharyngiomas (56.2%), 8 of Rathke cleft cysts (72.7%), 7 of pituitary adenomas (70%), 5 of chordomas/chondrosarcomas (50%), 6 of dermoid/epidermoid tumors (85.7%), and 9 cases of other pathologies (31%). Fourteen patients received adjuvant radiotherapy, and 5 received chemotherapy. Sixteen patients (15.4%) showed tumor recurrence and underwent reoperation. Bony abnormalities included skull base defects (n = 12), basilar invagination (n = 4), optic nerve compression (n = 3) and trauma (n = 2); preexisting neurological dysfunction resolved in 12 patients (57.1%), improved in 7 (33.3%), and remained unchanged in 2 (9.5%). Overall, complications included CSF leak in 14 cases (10.5%), meningitis in 5 (3.8%), transient diabetes insipidus in 8 patients (6.0%), and permanent diabetes insipidus in 12 (9.0%). Five patients (3.8%) had transient and 3 (2.3%) had permanent cranial nerve palsies. The mean follow-up time was 22.7 months (range 1–122 months); 5 patients were lost to follow-up. Conclusions Endoscopic endonasal surgery has proved to be a safe and feasible approach for the management of a variety of pediatric skull base pathologies. When appropriately indicated, EES may achieve optimal outcomes in the pediatric population.


2016 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. E18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hasan A. Zaidi ◽  
Kenneth De Los Reyes ◽  
Garni Barkhoudarian ◽  
Zachary N. Litvack ◽  
Wenya Linda Bi ◽  
...  

OBJECTIVE Endoscopic skull base surgery has become increasingly popular among the skull base surgery community, with improved illumination and angled visualization potentially improving tumor resection rates. Intraoperative MRI (iMRI) is used to detect residual disease during the course of the resection. This study is an investigation of the utility of 3-T iMRI in combination with transnasal endoscopy with regard to gross-total resection (GTR) of pituitary macroadenomas. METHODS The authors retrospectively reviewed all endoscopic transsphenoidal operations performed in the Advanced Multimodality Image Guided Operating (AMIGO) suite from November 2011 to December 2014. Inclusion criteria were patients harboring presumed pituitary macroadenomas with optic nerve or chiasmal compression and visual loss, operated on by a single surgeon. RESULTS Of the 27 patients who underwent transsphenoidal resection in the AMIGO suite, 20 patients met the inclusion criteria. The endoscope alone, without the use of iMRI, would have correctly predicted extent of resection in 13 (65%) of 20 cases. Gross-total resection was achieved in 12 patients (60%) prior to MRI. Intraoperative MRI helped convert 1 STR and 4 NTRs to GTRs, increasing the number of GTRs from 12 (60%) to 16 (80%). CONCLUSIONS Despite advances in visualization provided by the endoscope, the incidence of residual disease can potentially place the patient at risk for additional surgery. The authors found that iMRI can be useful in detecting unexpected residual tumor. The cost-effectiveness of this tool is yet to be determined.


2014 ◽  
Vol 75 (S 01) ◽  
Author(s):  
James Byrd ◽  
Eric Wang ◽  
Juan Fernandez-Miranda ◽  
Paul Gardner ◽  
Carl Snyderman

Skull Base ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 17 (S 2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Theodore Schwartz ◽  
Seth Brown ◽  
Abtin Tabaee ◽  
Vijay Anand

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document