Almutairi Reem D, Muskens Ivo S, Cote David J, Dijkman Mark D, Kavouridis Vasileios K, Crocker Erin, Ghazawi Kholoud, Broekman Marike L D, Smith Timothy R, Mekary Rania A, Zaidi Hasan A
Department of Pharmaceutical Business and Administrative Sciences, MCPHS University, Boston, MA, USA.
School of Pharmacy, Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2018 May;160(5):1005-1021. doi: 10.1007/s00701-017-3438-z. Epub 2018 Jan 6.
Microscopic transsphenoidal surgery (mTSS) is a well-established method to address adenomas of the pituitary gland. Endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery (eTSS) has become a viable alternative, however. Advocates suggest that the greater illumination, panoramic visualization, and angled endoscopic views afforded by eTSS may allow for higher rates of gross total tumor resection (GTR). The aim of this meta-analysis was to determine the rate of GTR using mTSS and eTSS.
A meta-analysis of the literature was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases through July 2017 in accordance with PRISMA guidelines.
Seventy case series that reported GTR rate in 8257 pituitary adenoma patients were identified. For all pituitary adenomas, eTSS (GTR=74.0%; I = 92.1%) was associated with higher GTR as compared to mTSS (GTR=66.4%; I = 84.0%) in a fixed-effect model (P-interaction < 0.01). For functioning pituitary adenomas (FPAs) (n = 1170 patients), there was no significant difference in GTR rate between eTSS (GTR=75.8%; I = 63.9%) and mTSS (GTR=75.5%; I = 79.0%); (P-interaction = 0.92). For nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas (NFPAs) (n = 2655 patients), eTSS (GTR=71.0%; I = 86.4%) was associated with higher GTR as compared to mTSS (GTR=60.7%; I = 87.5%) in a fixed-effect model (P-interaction < 0.01). None of the associations were significant in a random-effect model (all P-interaction > 0.05). No significant publication bias was identified for any of the outcomes.
Among patients who were not randomly allocated to either approach, eTSS resulted in a higher rate of GTR as compared to mTSS for all patients and for NFPA patients alone, but only in a fixed-effect model. For FPA, however, eTSS did not seem to offer a significantly higher rate of GTR. These conclusions should be interpreted with caution because of the nature of the included non-comparative studies.
显微镜下经蝶窦手术(mTSS)是治疗垂体腺瘤的一种成熟方法。然而,内镜经蝶窦手术(eTSS)已成为一种可行的替代方法。支持者认为,eTSS提供的更强照明、全景视野和角度内镜视野可能使肿瘤全切除率(GTR)更高。本荟萃分析的目的是确定使用mTSS和eTSS的GTR率。
根据PRISMA指南,使用PubMed、EMBASE和Cochrane数据库对截至2017年7月的文献进行荟萃分析。
确定了70个病例系列,报告了8257例垂体腺瘤患者的GTR率。对于所有垂体腺瘤,在固定效应模型中,与mTSS(GTR = 66.4%;I² = 84.0%)相比,eTSS(GTR = 74.0%;I² = 92.1%)的GTR更高(P交互<0.01)。对于功能性垂体腺瘤(FPA)(n = 1170例患者),eTSS(GTR = 75.8%;I² = 63.9%)和mTSS(GTR = 75.5%;I² = 79.0%)的GTR率无显著差异;(P交互 = 0.92)。对于无功能性垂体腺瘤(NFPA)(n = 2655例患者),在固定效应模型中,与mTSS(GTR = 60.7%;I² = 87.5%)相比,eTSS(GTR = 71.0%;I² = 86.4%)的GTR更高(P交互<0.01)。在随机效应模型中,所有关联均无显著性(所有P交互>0.05)。未发现任何结局有显著的发表偏倚。
在未随机分配至任何一种手术方法的患者中,对于所有患者以及仅对于NFPA患者,与mTSS相比,eTSS导致更高的GTR率,但仅在固定效应模型中如此。然而,对于FPA,eTSS似乎并未提供显著更高的GTR率。由于纳入的非对照研究的性质,这些结论应谨慎解释。