Defining benchmark outcomes for transsphenoidal surgery of pituitary adenomas: a multicenter analysis.

IMPORTANCE: Benchmarks aid in improve outcomes for surgical procedures. However, best achievable results that have been validated internationally for transsphenoidal surgery (TS) are not available. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to establish standardized outcome benchmarks for TS of pituitary adenomas. DESIGN: A total of 2685 transsphenoidal tumor resections from 9 expert centers in 3 continents were analyzed. SETTING: Patients were risk stratified, and the median values of each center's outcomes were established. The benchmark was defined as the 75th percentile of all median values for a particular outcome. The postoperative benchmark outcomes included surgical factors, endocrinology-specific values, and neurology-specific values. RESULTS: Of 2685 patients, 1149 (42.8%) defined the low-risk benchmark cohort. Within these benchmark cases, 831 (72.3%) patients underwent microscopic TS, and 308 (26.8%) patients underwent endoscopic endonasal resection. Of all tumors, 799 (29.8%) cases invaded the cavernous sinus. The postoperative complication rate was 19.6% with mortality between 0.0% and 0.8%. Benchmark cutoffs were ≤2.9% for reoperation rate, ≤1.9% for cerebrospinal fluid leak requiring intervention, and ≤15.5% for transient diabetes insipidus. At 6 months, benchmark cutoffs were calculated as follows: readmission rate: ≤6.9%, new hypopituitarism ≤6.0%, and tumor remnant ≤19.2%. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis defines benchmark values for TS targeting morbidity and mortality and represents the best outcomes in the best patients in expert centers. These cutoffs can be used to assess different centers, patient populations, and novel surgical techniques. It should be noted that the benchmark values may influence each other and must be evaluated in their own context.

A Multicenter, Propensity Score-Matched Assessment of Endoscopic Versus Microscopic Approaches in the Management of Pituitary Adenomas.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There is considerable controversy as to which of the 2 operating modalities (microsurgical or endoscopic transnasal surgery) currently used to resect pituitary adenomas (PAs) is the safest and most effective intervention. We compared rates of clinical outcomes of patients with PAs who underwent resection by either microsurgical or endoscopic transnasal surgery. METHODS: To independently assess the outcomes of each modality type, we sought to isolate endoscopic and microscopic PA surgeries with a 1:1 tight-caliper (0.01) propensity score-matched analysis using a multicenter, neurosurgery-specific database. Surgeries were performed between 2017 and 2020, with data collected retrospectively from 12 international institutions on 4 continents. Matching was based on age, previous neurological deficit, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, tumor functionality, tumor size, and Knosp score. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. RESULTS: Among a pool of 2826 patients, propensity score matching resulted in 600 patients from 9 surgery centers being analyzed. Multivariate analysis showed that microscopic surgery had a 1.91 odds ratio (OR) ( P = .03) of gross total resection (GTR) and shorter operative duration ( P < .01). However, microscopic surgery also had a 7.82 OR ( P < .01) for intensive care unit stay, 2.08 OR ( P < .01) for intraoperative cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak, 2.47 OR ( P = .02) for postoperative syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion (SIADH), and was an independent predictor for longer postoperative stay (ß = 2.01, P < .01). Overall, no differences in postoperative complications or 3- to 6-month outcomes were seen by surgical approach. CONCLUSION: Our international, multicenter matched analysis suggests microscopic approaches for pituitary tumor resection may offer better GTR rates, albeit with increased intensive care unit stay, CSF leak, SIADH, and hospital utilization. Better prospective studies can further validate these findings as matching patients for outcome analysis remains challenging. These results may provide insight into surgical benchmarks at different centers, offer room for further registry studies, and identify best practices.