Suprasellar Meningiomas

Published on 26/03/2015 by admin

Filed under Neurosurgery

Last modified 26/03/2015

Print this page

rate 1 star rate 2 star rate 3 star rate 4 star rate 5 star
Your rating: none, Average: 0 (0 votes)

This article have been viewed 1961 times

CHAPTER 28 Suprasellar Meningiomas

INTRODUCTION

The first successful removal of a tuberculum sellae meningioma was performed by Cushing in 1916. Later, in 1929, Cushing and Eisenhardt classified the meningiomas of the tuberculum sellae in four stages, according to their size.1,2 Although Cushing emphasized that the early diagnosis, which determines the surgical results, is based on the attendance and accuracy of ophthalmologists, even in the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) era the history of the symptoms remains too long. However, surgical treatment of these meningiomas evolved significantly over the following decades and in recent series complete removal has been achieved with an acceptable morbidity rate and the mortality is approaching 0%.38

The precise definition of SM remains controversial, however. Tumors arising from different locations and extending either primarily or secondarily in the suprasellar area are regarded as such by some authors.3,911 Alternatively, taking into account some clinical and therapeutical differences, they are regarded as separate entities according to their exact location, for example, diaphragm sellae, planum sphenoidale, or anterior clinoid meningiomas.57,12

SM originate from tuberculum sellae, chiasmatic sulcus, limbus sphenoidale, and partly from diaphragma sellae and extend sub- or retrochiasmatic.6,7 Preoperative differentiation between tuberculum and diaphragma sellae meningiomas might be impossible sometimes and only when tumor attachment to the basal dura is visualized intraoperatively is the exact diagnosis made. Although frontobasal, olfactory tract, planum sphenoidale, anterior clinoid, and medial sphenoid wing meningiomas might extend into the area, they are located prechiasmatically and are not discussed in the current chapter.

NEUROIMAGING

In all patients computed tomography (CT) and MRI, both native and with intravenous administration of a contrast agent, should be made. High-resolution CT scans best reveal the generally hyperostotic bony changes in the region of interest.5,10,12 Meningiomas are usually isointense to brain on T1-weighted MR sequences and hypointense on T2-weighted sequences. They are normally located above the diaphragma sellae, where pituitary gland and stalk can be identified. After administration of intravenous contrast, they enhance homogeneously. In contrast, pituitary macroadenomas tend to demonstrate a higher T2-weighted signal and patchy contrast enhancement. The presence of intrasellar calcifications on CT or of a hyperostosis may suggest meningioma; however, pituitary adenoma or craniopharyngioma sometimes cannot be ruled out. Another important difference is the size of the sella turcica: in the case of SM it is generally not expanded or only slightly enlarged.15

Carotid artery angiography might be performed in patients harboring large tumors and typically shows elevation of one or both A1 segments of the anterior cerebral artery. In a recent study, tumor blush was noted in 70% of the cases and narrowing or lateral displacement of the internal carotid artery was seen in 9.1%.5 Magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) is used to analyze the location of the carotid artery and anterior cerebral artery complex. If the meningioma extends superiorly toward the floor of the third ventricle behind the anterior cerebral artery complex, complete tumor removal might be more difficult.16

SURGICAL TREATMENT

Historically, several approaches to the suprasellar area have been developed and controversy still exists as to the most effective one. Some authors state that the approach should be individually selected according to tumor size and attachment in this area, while others prefer more confined and safe approaches and consider the approach-related morbidity of paramount importance. The approaches that are commonly utilized are the bifrontal,10,12,17 the unifrontal,3,6,11,13 the pterional,5,7,12,13,18 and the frontolateral.3,7,9 In the past few years the extended endoscopic transsphenoidal approach has gained acceptance.

The craniotomy is done generally on the right side unless the tumor has a significantly eccentric extension toward the optic nerve and carotid artery on the left side.5,7,13,19,20 Some surgeons prefer to approach the tumor on the side of worse vision.6 Whatever side is chosen, however, it should be remembered that it is more difficult to remove the tumor portion from underneath the ipsilateral optic nerve. Further, the optic nerve on that side is more prone to surgical lesion.

Bifrontal Approach

The bifrontal approach provides wide exposure of the suprasellar area. The craniotomy should extend anterior as low as possible to the orbital roof. The frontal sinuses are opened and the mucous membranes have to be removed completely. The dura is opened parallel to the base, the sagittal sinus is ligated and cut, and the falx is transected.7 The bifrontal subfrontal exposure provides excellent views of the entire tuberculum sellae, of both optic nerves, as well as internal carotid and anterior cerebral arteries.15,19 However, it has several major drawbacks, including opening the frontal sinus with the related risks of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage and meningitis, bilateral olfactory nerve damage, and bilateral frontal lobes injury.19 Further, due to sectioning of the superior sagittal sinus and draining midline veins, the risk of postoperative brain edema and venous brain infarction is high. For this reasons, we do not recommend the bifrontal approach for resection of SM.7 Some authors use this approach to reach the tumor via the anterior interhemispheric space.

Unilateral Subfrontal Approach

The unilateral subfrontal approach3,6,11,13 includes a basal unilateral craniotomy extended medially to the midline. It provides relatively wide access to the suprasellar area and is less traumatic than the bifrontal approach. Some authors find it superior to frontotemporal approach because it provides wide exposure to both internal carotid arteries and optic nerves. In large tumors, Ciric and colleagues16 proposed that the unilateral craniotomy should be extended across the midline, thus allowing for sectioning of the falx.

Frontotemporal Approach

Frontotemporal (pterional) craniotomy exposes the frontal and temporal lobes, as well as the sylvian fissure and the sphenoid ridge. The removal of lesser sphenoid wing to the superior orbital fissure allows minimizing brain retraction.7 Although some authors recommend wide opening of the sylvian fissure across the limen insulae with release of CSF, we think that it should not be routinely opened, especially in the treatment of smaller tumors.5 The pterional approach allows early CSF release and offers a short route to the lesion. It provides a more advantageous angle between the carotid artery and the optic nerve, as well as access to the back of the tumor.20,21

To achieve better visual outcome, Matthiesen and colleagues20 proposed a modified pterional approach with early optic nerve decompression. The optic canal and nerve, as well as the anterior clinoid process, are unroofed extradurally. The authors find that the release of the optic nerve allows excellent visual outcomes without any deterioration of visual function.

Some skull-base techniques, such as supraorbital osteotomy, removal of the greater and lesser sphenoid wings with opening of the superior orbital fissure, superior orbitotomy to include the supraorbital ridge as a single bone construct, and extradural removal of the anterior clinoid have been introduced to bring the surgeon as close to the tumor as possible and to minimize frontal retraction, thus limiting postoperative neuropsychologic sequelae.15,16,

Buy Membership for Neurosurgery Category to continue reading. Learn more here