Comparison of Surgical Approach to Endoscopic Pituitary Adenoma Resection

The purpose of this study is to determine if there is a significant difference in sinonasal disease specific quality of life and utility scores between patients undergoing the posterior septectomy or Stamm approach during endoscopic pituitary adenoma resection.

Pituitary adenoma's represent 10 to 25% of all central nervous system (CNS) neoplasms and have an estimated population prevalence of 94 per 100,000. Asymptomatic adenomas go largely undetected since there is no screening protocol implemented with the purpose for early identification. Asymptomatic adenomas can be detected incidentally on CNS imaging for other indications in approximately 10% of studies and rarely require surgical intervention. In 2011, the Endocrine Society published practice guidelines on the management of pituitary incidentalomas and provided the surgical indications. Incidental microadenoma's (\< 10 mm) rarely need surgical intervention, however, incidental macroadenoma's (\> 10 mm) often required surgical resection due to the proximity of the optic nerves and chiasm.

Most symptomatic pituitary adenomas require transnasal transsphenoid surgical resection. Due to the potential for hormone secretion and location to vital structures such as the optic chiasm/nerves, carotid artery, and cavernous sinus, management of symptomatic pituitary adenomas often require a multi-disciplinary team involving neurosurgery, otolaryngology, neuroophthalmology, and endocrinology. Traditionally the microscope was used for visualization during pituitary tumor surgery, however with recent technologic advances, the endoscopic approach has largely replaced the microscopic approach. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis compared the microscopic and endoscopic approaches and have demonstrated that the endoscopic approach results in a significant reduction in the rate of cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) leak, improved tumor resection, improved patient comfort, and reduced hospital length of stay. Furthermore, the endoscopic approach appears to provide an overall cost savings compared to the microscopic approach.

Several recent studies have demonstrated that the endoscopic approach for pituitary adenoma resection results in improved disease-specific quality of life (QoL) and general QoL. All studies have utilized the posterior septectomy approach which involves removing the posterior nasal septum to create a common posterior nasal cavity. The open posterior nasal cavity provides excellent surgical access to the sphenoid sinus and pituitary gland. Disadvantages of the posterior septectomy approach include the permanent posterior septal perforation which may predispose to postoperative crusting and epistaxis. A recent article by Stamm et al. described a novel endoscopic approach whereby the posterior septal mucosa is preserved while still providing excellent access to the sphenoid. The primary advantage of this approach is preventing a posterior septal defect, however disadvantages include being a more challenging technique and the potential for reduced surgical visualization. Furthermore, there is still a risk of a septal perforation due to intraoperative trauma and significant postoperative crusting which often develops along the surface of the healing septal mucosa. Both endoscopic approaches have inherent advantages and disadvantages and there has been no study comparing these approaches. Surgeons performing endoscopic pituitary tumor resections utilize both approaches and neither is considered the standard of care.

The purpose of this randomized, single-blinded study is to determine the clinical outcomes between the posterior septectomy and Stamm approach for endoscopic pituitary adenoma resection. We hypothesize that there will be no difference in disease-specific QoL and general QoL between the two surgical approaches.

Eligibility Criteria:
Inclusion Criteria:

* Age \> 18 years old
* Diagnosis of a pituitary adenoma requiring resection defined as pituitary lesion with any of the following:

  1. Neuroimaging or clinical evidence of apoplexy
  2. Decline in central visual acuity worse than (best-corrected) Snellen equivalent of 20/25 in either eye
  3. clinically significant visual field loss as determined by Humphrey or Goldmann perimetry
  4. Clinically significant cranial nerve deficit
  5. Clinically relevant neuroendocrine deficit
  6. Intolerance of optimal medical management
* Patient electing endoscopic resection approach

Exclusion Criteria:

* Concurrent chronic rhinosinusitis
* Revision pituitary adenoma resections
* Severe medical co-morbidities with the inability to undergo general anesthesia