Dataset Information

Endoscopic vs. microscopic transsphenoidal surgery for Cushing's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing endoscopic and microscopic transsphenoidal surgery for Cushing's disease regarding surgical outcomes (remission, recurrence, and mortality) and complication rates. To stratify the results by tumor size. METHODS:Nine electronic databases were searched in February 2017 to identify potentially relevant articles. Cohort studies assessing surgical outcomes or complication rates after endoscopic or microscopic transsphenoidal surgery for Cushing's disease were eligible. Pooled proportions were reported including 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS:We included 97 articles with 6695 patients in total (5711 microscopically and 984 endoscopically operated). Overall, remission was achieved in 5177 patients (80%), with no clear difference between both techniques. Recurrence was around 10% and short term mortality < 0.5% for both techniques. Cerebrospinal fluid leak occurred more often in endoscopic surgery (12.9 vs. 4.0%), whereas transient diabetes insipidus occurred less often (11.3 vs. 21.7%). For microadenomas, results were comparable between both techniques. For macroadenomas, the percentage of patients in remission was higher after endoscopic surgery (76.3 vs. 59.9%), and the percentage recurrence lower after endoscopic surgery (1.5 vs. 17.0%). CONCLUSIONS:Endoscopic surgery for patients with Cushing's disease reaches comparable results for microadenomas, and probably better results for macroadenomas than microscopic surgery. This is present despite the presumed learning curve of the newer endoscopic technique, although confounding cannot be excluded. Based on this study, endoscopic surgery may thus be considered the current standard of care. Microscopic surgery can be used based on neurosurgeon's preference. Endocrinologists and neurosurgeons in pituitary centers performing the microscopic technique should at least consider referring Cushing's disease patients with a macroadenoma.

SUBMITTER: Broersen LHA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6132967 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOver 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsThirty 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.ConclusionThe 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.

Project description:ObjectiveThe objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of pasireotide, cabergoline, ketoconazole, levoketoconazole, metyrapone, osilodrostat, and temozolomide for the treatment of Cushing's disease (CD).MethodsThe primary outcomes were the proportion of CD control, adverse events (AE), and reduction of urinary free cortisol. Search strategies were applied to Embase, Medline, and CENTRAL. Independent reviewers assessed the study eligibility, extracted data, and evaluated risk of bias. Standardized mean difference was calculated with 95% confidence interval (CI) for continuous data (i.e., pre- and post-intervention). Random meta-analyses for the proportion of CD control and AE were conducted.ResultsTwenty-nine controlled and non-controlled studies were included. No study with temozolomide and levoketoconazole and one study with osilodrostat fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The meta-analyses of proportion of CD control was 35% for cabergoline (95% CI: 27-43%, six studies, 141 participants), 44% for pasireotide (95% CI: 25-35%, eight studies, 522 participants), 41% for ketoconazole (95% CI: 36-46%, six studies, 450 participants), 66% for metyrapone (95% CI: 46-87%, four studies, 66 participants), and of 66.4% for osilodrostat (95% CI: 57.9, 74.3, 97 participants, one study). One study compared two different treatments (cabergoline vs. ketoconazole), and no statistical difference was observed in CD control (RR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.15 to 1.87, 14 participants, very low certainty of evidence). The most frequent AE associated with pasireotide was hyperglycemia, dizziness and nausea with cabergoline and metyrapone, and elevated transaminases with ketoconazole.ConclusionThe superiority of one drug over another could not be determined due to lack of controlled studies, but the proportion of disease control identified in our meta-analysis may support clinical decision. New therapeutic options should be investigated due to the limited efficacy and tolerability of the currently available medical treatment for patients with Cushing's disease.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020205567, identifier CRD42020205567.

Dataset Information

Endoscopic vs. microscopic transsphenoidal surgery for Cushing's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets