Dataset Information

Mononostril versus Binostril Endoscopic Transsphenoidal Approach for Pituitary Adenomas: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Over the past several decades, the endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal approach (EETA) has gradually become a preferred option of pituitary adenomas surgery because of its minimal invasiveness and high efficiency. However, some EETA operations were performed through one nostril (mononostril), while other EETA operations were performed through both nostrils (binostril). Therefore, we conducted this study to compare the pros and cons of these two methods in an attempted to confirm which method is more effective.

Methods

We executed a systematic literature search of PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science and Medline (1992-2015). The language is limited to English and all studies should meet the inclusion criteria. Comparisons were made for postoperative outcomes, complications, and other relevant parameters between the mononostril and the binostril group. Statistical analyses of categorical variables were undertaken by the use of Stata 12.0 and SPASS 19.0.

Results

Thirty studies, involving 4805 patients, were included. The two groups had similar results in GTR rate (included GTR rate of macroadenomas), hormonal remission rate, improvement in visual function, postoperative CSF leak, permanent diabetes insipidus, meningitis, and sinusitis. The binostril group had less temporary diabetes insipidus (2.9% vs. 5.3%, p = 0.022), less anterior pituitary insufficiency (2.3% vs. 6.4%, p = 0.000) and few hospitalization days (3.2 days vs. 4.4 days, p<0.05) than the mononostril group. However, the mononostril group had less rate of epistaxis (0.4% vs. 1.5%, p = 0.008) than the binostril group. For invasive macroadenomas, the binostril group seem to demonstrate a tendency towards better outcomes though there was no subgroup analysis between the two groups.

Conclusion

The binostril approach had less temporary diabetes insipidus, anterior pituitary insufficiency, and a shorter length of hospital stay, although they demonstrated a higher rate of epistaxis than the mononstril group. Additionally, the binostril group seemed to suggest a tendency towards better outcomes for invasive macroadenomas.

SUBMITTER: Wen G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4849742 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Mononostril versus Binostril Endoscopic Transsphenoidal Approach for Pituitary Adenomas: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Wen Guodao G Tang Chao C Zhong Chunyu C Li Xiang X Li Junyang J Li Liwen L Yang Youqing Y Ma Chiyuan C

PloS one 20160428 4

<h4>Background</h4>Over the past several decades, the endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal approach (EETA) has gradually become a preferred option of pituitary adenomas surgery because of its minimal invasiveness and high efficiency. However, some EETA operations were performed through one nostril (mononostril), while other EETA operations were performed through both nostrils (binostril). Therefore, we conducted this study to compare the pros and cons of these two methods in an attempted to conf ...[more]

PMID: 27124276

Similar Datasets

Project description:Pituitary adenomas (PA) are amongst the most prevalent intracranial tumors, causing complications by hormonal overproduction or deficiency and tumor mass effects, with 95% of cases occurring sporadically. Associated germline mutations (AIP, MEN1, CDKN1B, PRKAR1A, SDHx) and Xq26.3 microduplications are increasingly identified, but the clinical consequences in sporadic PA remain unclear. This systematic review evaluates predictors of a genetic cause of sporadic PA and the consequences for treatment outcome. We undertook a sensitive MEDLINE/Pubmed, EMBASE, and Web of Science search with critical appraisal of identified studies. Thirty-seven studies on predictors of mutations and 10 studies on the influence on treatment outcome were included. AIP and MEN1 mutations were associated with young age of PA diagnosis. AIP mutations were also associated with gigantism and macroadenomas at time of diagnosis. Xq26.3 microduplications were associated with PA below the age of five. AIP and MEN1 mutation analysis is therefore recommended in young patients (?30 years). AIP mutation analysis is specifically recommended for patients with PA induced gigantism and macroadenoma. Screening for Xq26.3 microduplications is advisable in children below the age of five with increased growth velocity due to PA. There is no evidence supporting mutation analysis of other genes in sporadic PA. MEN1 mutation related prolactinoma respond well to dopamine agonists while AIP mutation associated somatotroph and lactotroph adenoma are frequently resistant to medical treatment. In patients harboring an Xq26.3 microduplication treatment is challenging, although outcome is not different from other patients with PA induced gigantism. Effective use of genetic analysis may lead to early disease identification, while knowledge of the impact of germline mutations on susceptibility to various treatment modalities helps to determine therapeutic strategies, possibly lowering disease morbidity.

Dataset Information

Mononostril versus Binostril Endoscopic Transsphenoidal Approach for Pituitary Adenomas: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Mononostril versus Binostril Endoscopic Transsphenoidal Approach for Pituitary Adenomas: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets