Comparative efficacy of transcranial and endoscopic surgery for craniopharyngioma: A systematic review and meta-analysis of contemporary literature.

Surgical neurology international Pub Date : 2024-10-04 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.25259/SNI_399_2024
I Wayan Weda Wisnawa, Irwan Barlian Immadoel Haq
{"title":"Comparative efficacy of transcranial and endoscopic surgery for craniopharyngioma: A systematic review and meta-analysis of contemporary literature.","authors":"I Wayan Weda Wisnawa, Irwan Barlian Immadoel Haq","doi":"10.25259/SNI_399_2024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Craniopharyngiomas pose a significant clinical challenge due to their complex anatomical location and potential for neurological sequelae. Surgical management options include transcranial and endoscopic approaches, each with its advantages and limitations. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to comprehensively compare the outcomes of transcranial and endoscopic surgery for craniopharyngioma, integrating the latest evidence from ten pertinent journal articles.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search of electronic databases, including Google Scholar, PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase, was conducted to identify relevant studies published between 2010 and 2022. A total of eight articles comparing outcomes of transcranial and endoscopic surgery for craniopharyngioma were included in the study. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The transcranial approach was less effective in achieving gross total resection (odds ratio [OR] = 0.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.32-0.70) compared to the endoscopic approach, with low heterogeneity (I<sup>2</sup> = 41%). However, both approaches had similar odds for near-total resection, subtotal resection, and partial resection. The transcranial approach was associated with lower odds of total neurological complications (OR = 0.6, 95% CI = 0.4-0.9), higher odds of tumor recurrence (OR = 1.86, 95% CI = 1.12-3.09), and lower odds of visual improvement (OR = 0.43, 95% CI = 0.32-0.58) compared to the endoscopic approach. There was no significant difference in mortality rate between the two approaches.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of transcranial and endoscopic surgery for craniopharyngioma reveals that the endoscopic approach is preferred for managing specific conditions due to its higher likelihood of achieving complete resection and potentially better postsurgery outcomes, minimizing neurological complications.</p>","PeriodicalId":94217,"journal":{"name":"Surgical neurology international","volume":"15 ","pages":"356"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11544467/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical neurology international","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25259/SNI_399_2024","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Craniopharyngiomas pose a significant clinical challenge due to their complex anatomical location and potential for neurological sequelae. Surgical management options include transcranial and endoscopic approaches, each with its advantages and limitations. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to comprehensively compare the outcomes of transcranial and endoscopic surgery for craniopharyngioma, integrating the latest evidence from ten pertinent journal articles.

Methods: A systematic search of electronic databases, including Google Scholar, PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase, was conducted to identify relevant studies published between 2010 and 2022. A total of eight articles comparing outcomes of transcranial and endoscopic surgery for craniopharyngioma were included in the study. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

Results: The transcranial approach was less effective in achieving gross total resection (odds ratio [OR] = 0.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.32-0.70) compared to the endoscopic approach, with low heterogeneity (I2 = 41%). However, both approaches had similar odds for near-total resection, subtotal resection, and partial resection. The transcranial approach was associated with lower odds of total neurological complications (OR = 0.6, 95% CI = 0.4-0.9), higher odds of tumor recurrence (OR = 1.86, 95% CI = 1.12-3.09), and lower odds of visual improvement (OR = 0.43, 95% CI = 0.32-0.58) compared to the endoscopic approach. There was no significant difference in mortality rate between the two approaches.

Conclusion: Our meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of transcranial and endoscopic surgery for craniopharyngioma reveals that the endoscopic approach is preferred for managing specific conditions due to its higher likelihood of achieving complete resection and potentially better postsurgery outcomes, minimizing neurological complications.

经颅手术和内窥镜手术治疗颅咽管瘤的疗效比较:当代文献的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:颅咽管瘤因其复杂的解剖位置和潜在的神经系统后遗症,给临床带来了巨大挑战。手术治疗方法包括经颅和内窥镜方法,每种方法都有其优势和局限性。本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在全面比较经颅手术和内窥镜手术治疗颅咽管瘤的效果,整合了十篇相关期刊论文中的最新证据:对谷歌学术、PubMed、MEDLINE 和 Embase 等电子数据库进行了系统检索,以确定 2010 年至 2022 年间发表的相关研究。研究共纳入了八篇文章,比较了经颅手术和内窥镜手术治疗颅咽管瘤的效果。数据提取和质量评估按照《系统综述和元分析首选报告项目》指南进行:结果:与内窥镜方法相比,经颅方法在实现大体全切除方面效果较差(几率比[OR] = 0.47,95%置信区间[CI] = 0.32-0.70),异质性较低(I2 = 41%)。不过,两种方法的近全切、次全切和部分切除几率相似。与内窥镜方法相比,经颅方法出现神经系统总并发症的几率较低(OR = 0.6,95% CI = 0.4-0.9),肿瘤复发的几率较高(OR = 1.86,95% CI = 1.12-3.09),视力改善的几率较低(OR = 0.43,95% CI = 0.32-0.58)。两种方法的死亡率无明显差异:我们的荟萃分析比较了经颅手术和内窥镜手术治疗颅咽管瘤的疗效,结果显示,内窥镜方法更有可能实现完全切除,术后效果可能更好,并能最大限度地减少神经系统并发症,因此是治疗特定病症的首选方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信