[Prospective comparative study on 50 patients between microsurgical sublabial transsphenoidal approach and endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal approach]. / Comparación del abordje transesfenoidal microquirúrgico frente al abordaje endonasal transesfenoidal endosócpico. Estudio prospectivo de 50 pacientes.

OBJECTIVE: Compare the standard transsphenoidal sublabial microscopic approach with the endoscopic transsphenoidal approach concerning the tumoral invasiveness and resection, complications of the approaches and time of post operative hospitalisation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We realized a prospective, non randomised study with 50 patients. They were operated between 2002 and 2006. All the patients had sellar lesions with different grades of invasiveness of the cavernous sinus as classified by Knosp. The variables included in our study were tumoral invasiveness and operative resection (total, subtotal and partial), optic nerve lesion, postoperative panhypopituitarism, CSF fistula, cranial nerves deficits, epistaxis, meningitis, diabetes insipidus and carotid artery lesion. Our series included 27 males and 23 females ranging from 19 to 80 years old (48 mean). In 23 patients we used the standard sublabial microscopic approach (two patients were excluded) and for 25 patients we used the endoscopic approach. The mean follow up was of 12 months. RESULTS: In our experience the endoscopic technique presents a higher percentage of total resection comparing to the sublabial microscopic approach (60% versus 34.8%) and higher percentage of subtotal resections (32% versus 26%) with a statistical significant difference (p=0.033). The time of hospitalisation was significant shorter for the endoscopic approach group (p=0.001), diminishing by half of the time (3 days) of the microscopic approach group. Concerning the tumoral invasiveness and complications we did not appreciate any significant dissimilarity. We appreciated that a higher grade of invasiveness augments by 3.59 the risk of an unsuccessful surgery. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: In our experience the endoscopic technique may favour a better tumoral resection and shorter time of hospitalisation. We did not appreciate differences concerning the complications.

Comparación del abordaje sublabial transesfenoidal microquirúrgico frente al abordaje endonasal transesfenoidal endoscópico. Estudio prospectivo de 50 pacientes / Prospective comparative study on 50 patients between microsurgical sublabial transsphenoidal approach and endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal approach

Objetivos. Comparar el abordaje transesfenoidal endonasal endoscópico con el abordaje transesfenoidal sublabial microquirúrgico. Valoración del grado de resección tumoral, grado de invasividad tumoral, complicaciones y estancia postoperatoria de ambos grupos. Material y métodos. Estudio prospectivo no randomizado de 50 pacientes intervenidos en nuestro centro entre 2002 y 2006 de lesiones en la región selar con diferentes grados de invasión del seno cavernoso según la clasificación de Knosp. Entre las variables a estudio se incluyeron los grados de invasión, los grados de resección postoperatoria (total, subtotal y parcial), lesión del nervio óptico, panhipopituitarismo postoperatorio, fístula de LCR, déficit de pares craneales, epistaxis, meningitis, diabetes insípida y lesión de arteria caró- tida. Nuestra serie consta de 27 hombres y 23 mujeres, con una edad media de 48 años (19-80 años). En 23 casos se utilizó una vía transesfenoidal sublabial microquirúrgica (2 pacientes fueron excluidos) y en 25 casos se realizó un abordaje transesfenoidal endoscópico. El seguimiento medio fue de 12 meses. Resultados. En nuestra experiencia la técnica endoscópica presenta un porcentaje de exéresis completa superior al de la técnica clásica (60% frente a 34,8%) que también se hace evidente en el caso de la resección subtotal (32% frente 26%) existiendo una diferencia estadísticamente significativa (p=0,033). En contraposición no encontramos diferencias en cuanto a complicaciones. También hemos evidenciado que existe una diferencia estadísticamente significativa en cuanto a la estancia postoperatoria (p=0,001), reduciéndose ésta a la mitad (3 días) con la técnica endoscópica. Si bien no hemos encontrado diferencias significativas en cuanto al grado de invasividad tumoral y al grado de resección, un mayor grado de invasividad aumenta en 3,59 veces el riesgo de poco éxito de la cirugía. Discusión y conclusiones. En nuestra experiencia con la técnica endoscópica obtenemos un mayor grado de resección quirúrgica y una estancia postoperatoria menor. No hemos observado diferencias en cuanto a complicaciones (AU)

Objective. Compare the standard transsphenoidal sublabial microscopic approach with the endoscopic transsphenoidal approach concerning the tumoral invasiveness and resection, complications of the approaches and time of post operative hospitalisation. Material and methods. We realized a prospective, non randomised study with 50 patients. They were operated between 2002 and 2006. All the patients had sellar lesions with different grades of invasiveness of the cavernous sinus as classified by Knosp. The variables included in our study were tumoral invasiveness and operative resection (total, subtotal and partial), optic nerve lesion, postoperative panhypopituitarism, CSF fistula, cranial nerves deficits, epistaxis, meningitis, diabetes insipidus and carotid artery lesion. Our series included 27 males and 23 females ranging from 19 to 80 years old (48 mean). In 23 patients we used the standard sublabial microscopic approach (two patients were excluded) and for 25 patients we used the endoscopic approach. The mean follow up was of 12 months. Results. In our experience the endoscopic technique presents a higher percentage of total resection comparing to the sublabial microscopic approach (60% versus 34,8%) and higher percentage of subtotal resections (32% versus 26%) with a statistical significan difference (p=0,033). The time of hospitalisation was significant shorter for the endoscopic approach group (p=0,001), diminishing by half of the time (3 days) of the microscopic approach group. Concerning the tumoral invasiveness and complications we did not appreciate any significant dissimilarity. We appreciated that a higher grade of invasiveness augments by 3,59 the risk of an unsuccessful surgery. Discussion and conclusion. In our experience the endoscopic technique may favour a better tumoral resection and shorter time of hospitalisation. We did not appreciate differences concerning the complications (AU)