Surgical outcomes in patients with endoscopic versus transcranial approach for skull base malignancies: a 10-year institutional experience

Abstract

Object

The authors performed an extensive comparison between patients treated with open versus an endoscopic approach for skull base malignancy with emphasis on surgical outcomes.

Methods

A single-institution retrospective review of 60 patients who underwent surgery for skull base malignancy between 2009 and 2018 was performed. Disease features, surgical resection, post-operative morbidities, adjuvant treatment, recurrence, and survival rates were compared between 30 patients who received purely open surgery and 30 patients who underwent purely endoscopic resection for a skull base malignancy.

Results

Of the 60 patients with skull base malignancy, 30 underwent open resection and 30 underwent endoscopic resection. The most common hisotype for endoscopic resection was squamous cell carcinoma (26.7%), olfactory neuroblastoma (16.7%), and sarcoma (10.0%), and 43.3%, 13.3%, and 10.0% for the open resection cohort, respectively. There were no statistical differences in gross total resection, surgical-associated cranial neuropathy, or ability to achieve negative margins between the groups (p > 0.1, all comparisons). Patients who underwent endoscopic resection had shorter surgeries (320.3 ± 158.5 minutes vs. 495.3 ± 187.6 minutes (p = 0.0003), less intraoperative blood loss (282.2 ± 333.6 ml vs. 696.7 ± 500.2 ml (p < 0.0001), and shorter length of stay (3.5 ± 3.7 days vs. 8.8 ± 6.0 days (p < 0.0001). Additionally, patients treated endoscopically initiated adjuvant radiation treatment more quickly (48.0 ± 20.3 days vs. 72.0 ± 20.5 days (p = 0.01).

Conclusions

An endoscopic endonasal approach facilitates a clinically meaningful improvement in surgical outcomes for skull base malignancies.

Keywords:

• Skull base surgery
• malignancy
• endoscopic surgery
• transcranial surgery
• gross total resection

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Jill Gregory who provided medical illustrations (Figures 1 and 2).

Disclosure statement

The authors report no conflict of interest concerning the materials or methods used in this study or the findings specified in this paper.

No parts of this work have been previously presented in any manner.