Comparative Efficacy of Transsphenoidal and Transcranial Approaches for Treating Tuberculum Sellae Meningiomas: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Edoardo Agosti, A. Yohan Alexander, Sara Antonietti, Marco Zeppieri, Amedeo Piazza, Pier Paolo Panciani, Marco Maria Fontanella, Carlos Pinheiro-Neto, Tamara Ius, Maria Peris-Celda

TL;DR
This study compares two surgical approaches for treating meningiomas near the base of the skull, finding that endoscopic endonasal approaches improve vision but increase cerebrospinal fluid leak risks.
Contribution
A comprehensive meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of endoscopic endonasal and transcranial approaches for tuberculum sellae meningiomas.
Findings
EEAs showed significantly better visual outcomes compared to MTAs.
EEAs had higher CSF leak rates but similar recurrence and infection rates compared to MTAs.
Both approaches achieved comparable gross total resection rates.
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Tuberculum sellae meningiomas (TSMs) constitute 5–10% of intracranial meningiomas, often causing visual impairment. Traditional microsurgical transcranial approaches (MTAs) have been effective, but the emergence of innovative surgical trajectories, such as endoscopic endonasal approaches (EEAs), has sparked debate. While EEAs offer advantages like reduced brain retraction, they are linked to higher cerebrospinal fluid leak (CSF leak) risk. This meta-analysis aims to comprehensively compare the efficacy and safety of EEAs and MTAs for the resection of TSMs, offering insights into their respective outcomes and complications. Methods: A comprehensive literature review of the databases PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, and Ovid EMBASE was conducted for articles published on TSMs treated with either EEA or MTA until 2024. The systematic review was performed according to the…
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
Click any figure to enlarge with its caption.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsSoil Mechanics and Vehicle Dynamics · Agricultural Engineering and Mechanization
