Jun Fu, Wenwei Luo, Chunlin Zhang, Zhicheng Wang, Wenjian Fan, Yuanxiang Lin, Dezhi Kang, Jianping Song, Changzhen Jiang, Xiaorong Yan
{"title":"巨大及不规则垂体神经内分泌肿瘤手术:单中心同时经颅经鼻内镜联合手术与单纯经鼻内镜手术的比较","authors":"Jun Fu, Wenwei Luo, Chunlin Zhang, Zhicheng Wang, Wenjian Fan, Yuanxiang Lin, Dezhi Kang, Jianping Song, Changzhen Jiang, Xiaorong Yan","doi":"10.1186/s41016-025-00389-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Surgical management of giant and irregular pituitary neuroendocrine tumors (GIPitNETs) presents a significant challenge in neurosurgery. While endoscopic endonasal surgery (EES) is a widely used approach for PitNETs, GIPitNETs with extensive intracranial extension pose challenges for purely EES. We use simultaneous combined endoscopic endonasal and transcranial surgery (CECS) for the treatment of this type of tumor. Currently, there is limited research comparing CECS to EES for GIPitNETs. This study aims to compare the efficacy and short outcome of CECS and purely EES in the management of GIPitNETs to better understand the advantages and limitations of each surgical approach.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The data of GIPitNETs patients who underwent surgery between March 2018 and May 2023 at a single center were retrospectively reviewed. All included cases were divided into CECS and EES groups according to the treatment modality received. The baseline characteristics and tumor imaging features of patients were compared between the groups, as well as surgical results, perioperative complications, and last follow-up outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 50 patients met the inclusion criteria, with 27 undergoing CECS and 23 EES. CECS achieved a significantly higher GTR rate compared to EES (66.7% vs. 13.0%, p < 0.0001). CECS had longer operation times and hospital stays, but both approaches had similar rates of complications, including intracranial infection, CSF leakage, new pituitary dysfunction, postoperative diabetes insipidus, and vascular infarction. CECS reduces the risk of postoperative bleeding. Tumor recurrence and reoperation were significantly more common in the EES group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>CECS is a safe and effective surgical approach for GIPitNETs, leading to higher rates of GTR, comparable complication rates, and reduced risk of postoperative bleeding when compared to purely EES. EES was associated with more tumor recurrence. Further long-term follow-up data is needed to validate these findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":36700,"journal":{"name":"Chinese Neurosurgical Journal","volume":"11 1","pages":"3"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11789305/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Giant and irregular pituitary neuroendocrine tumors surgery: comparison of simultaneous combined endoscopic endonasal and transcranial and purely endoscopic endonasal surgery at a single center.\",\"authors\":\"Jun Fu, Wenwei Luo, Chunlin Zhang, Zhicheng Wang, Wenjian Fan, Yuanxiang Lin, Dezhi Kang, Jianping Song, Changzhen Jiang, Xiaorong Yan\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s41016-025-00389-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Surgical management of giant and irregular pituitary neuroendocrine tumors (GIPitNETs) presents a significant challenge in neurosurgery. While endoscopic endonasal surgery (EES) is a widely used approach for PitNETs, GIPitNETs with extensive intracranial extension pose challenges for purely EES. We use simultaneous combined endoscopic endonasal and transcranial surgery (CECS) for the treatment of this type of tumor. Currently, there is limited research comparing CECS to EES for GIPitNETs. This study aims to compare the efficacy and short outcome of CECS and purely EES in the management of GIPitNETs to better understand the advantages and limitations of each surgical approach.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The data of GIPitNETs patients who underwent surgery between March 2018 and May 2023 at a single center were retrospectively reviewed. All included cases were divided into CECS and EES groups according to the treatment modality received. The baseline characteristics and tumor imaging features of patients were compared between the groups, as well as surgical results, perioperative complications, and last follow-up outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 50 patients met the inclusion criteria, with 27 undergoing CECS and 23 EES. CECS achieved a significantly higher GTR rate compared to EES (66.7% vs. 13.0%, p < 0.0001). CECS had longer operation times and hospital stays, but both approaches had similar rates of complications, including intracranial infection, CSF leakage, new pituitary dysfunction, postoperative diabetes insipidus, and vascular infarction. CECS reduces the risk of postoperative bleeding. Tumor recurrence and reoperation were significantly more common in the EES group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>CECS is a safe and effective surgical approach for GIPitNETs, leading to higher rates of GTR, comparable complication rates, and reduced risk of postoperative bleeding when compared to purely EES. EES was associated with more tumor recurrence. Further long-term follow-up data is needed to validate these findings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36700,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Chinese Neurosurgical Journal\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"3\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11789305/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Chinese Neurosurgical Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41016-025-00389-4\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chinese Neurosurgical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41016-025-00389-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:巨大和不规则垂体神经内分泌肿瘤(GIPitNETs)的外科治疗是神经外科的一个重大挑战。虽然内窥镜鼻内手术(EES)是PitNETs广泛使用的方法,但具有广泛颅内延伸的GIPitNETs对纯EES提出了挑战。我们使用同时联合内镜鼻内和经颅手术(CECS)治疗这种类型的肿瘤。目前,比较CECS和EES用于GIPitNETs的研究有限。本研究旨在比较CECS和纯EES在GIPitNETs治疗中的疗效和短期预后,以更好地了解每种手术入路的优点和局限性。方法:回顾性分析2018年3月至2023年5月在单中心接受手术的GIPitNETs患者的数据。所有病例根据所接受的治疗方式分为CECS组和EES组。比较两组患者的基线特征和肿瘤影像学特征,以及手术结果、围手术期并发症和末次随访结果。结果:50例患者符合纳入标准,其中27例行CECS, 23例行EES。与EES相比,CECS的GTR率明显更高(66.7% vs. 13.0%)。结论:与单纯EES相比,CECS是一种安全有效的GIPitNETs手术入路,GTR率更高,并发症发生率相当,术后出血风险降低。EES与更高的肿瘤复发率相关。需要进一步的长期随访数据来验证这些发现。
Giant and irregular pituitary neuroendocrine tumors surgery: comparison of simultaneous combined endoscopic endonasal and transcranial and purely endoscopic endonasal surgery at a single center.
Background: Surgical management of giant and irregular pituitary neuroendocrine tumors (GIPitNETs) presents a significant challenge in neurosurgery. While endoscopic endonasal surgery (EES) is a widely used approach for PitNETs, GIPitNETs with extensive intracranial extension pose challenges for purely EES. We use simultaneous combined endoscopic endonasal and transcranial surgery (CECS) for the treatment of this type of tumor. Currently, there is limited research comparing CECS to EES for GIPitNETs. This study aims to compare the efficacy and short outcome of CECS and purely EES in the management of GIPitNETs to better understand the advantages and limitations of each surgical approach.
Methods: The data of GIPitNETs patients who underwent surgery between March 2018 and May 2023 at a single center were retrospectively reviewed. All included cases were divided into CECS and EES groups according to the treatment modality received. The baseline characteristics and tumor imaging features of patients were compared between the groups, as well as surgical results, perioperative complications, and last follow-up outcomes.
Results: A total of 50 patients met the inclusion criteria, with 27 undergoing CECS and 23 EES. CECS achieved a significantly higher GTR rate compared to EES (66.7% vs. 13.0%, p < 0.0001). CECS had longer operation times and hospital stays, but both approaches had similar rates of complications, including intracranial infection, CSF leakage, new pituitary dysfunction, postoperative diabetes insipidus, and vascular infarction. CECS reduces the risk of postoperative bleeding. Tumor recurrence and reoperation were significantly more common in the EES group.
Conclusions: CECS is a safe and effective surgical approach for GIPitNETs, leading to higher rates of GTR, comparable complication rates, and reduced risk of postoperative bleeding when compared to purely EES. EES was associated with more tumor recurrence. Further long-term follow-up data is needed to validate these findings.