Degrees of Diaphragma Sellae Descent during Transsphenoidal Pituitary Adenoma Resection: Predictive Factors and Effect on Outcome

Abstract

This study is aimed to classify degrees of diaphragma sellae (DS) descent into sella turcica according to the surgical field block caused by the descent and to construct predictive imaging criteria for the degree of descent, and in addition, to determine whether there is any correlation between the degree of DS descent and the operative outcome (in the form of cerebrospinal fluid leak and/or presence of residual tumor). Totally, 72 patients were enrolled in our study. Their clinical and radiological data as well as the high definition videos of operations were retrospectively reviewed. The degree of DS descent during the operation was classified into five degrees according to surgical field block caused by the descent. We investigated the correlation between these five degrees and the clinical findings, radiological findings as well as the surgical outcomes. We found that the most important determining factors of DS descent degree were the volume and the height of the tumor portion above diaphragma opening. On the other hand, the total tumor volume, the maximum tumor height and the morphological pattern according to Wilson’s system (modified from Hardy) had no statistically significant correlation with DS degree of descent. Presence of residual tumor on postoperative magnetic resonance images was significantly correlated with Wilson’s classification and with supradiaphragmatic tumor height. On the other hand, cerebrospinal fluid leak showed no statistically significant difference between variable degrees of DS descent. Volumetric data of the tumor portion above the diaphragma opening are more important than morphological data for prediction of surgical field block caused by descended DS. While DS prolapse significantly increases the difficulty of the operative procedure, residual tumor presence is mainly dependent on morphological classification, especially cavernous sinus invasion.

Keywords

diaphragma sellae / pituitary macroadenoma / transsphenoidal surgery / cerebrospinal fluid leak

References

[1] MatsuyamaJ, KawaseT, YoshidaK, et al.. Management of large and giant pituitary adenomas with suprasellar extensions. Asian J Neurosurg, 2010, 5(1): 48-53

[2] Guinto BalanzarG, AbdoM, MercadoM, et al.. Diaphragma sellae: A surgical reference for transsphenoidal resection of pituitary macroadenomas. World Neurosurg, 2011, 75(2): 286-293

[3] HendricksB, Cohen-GadolA. Pituitary macroadenoma, 2016

[4] EdwardRL, PaulTB, JohnJ. ConnollyES, McKhannGM, HuangJ. Transsphenoidal approach. Fundamentals of operative techniques in neurosurgery, 2010, New York, Thieme Medical: 78-85

[5] CamperoA, MartinsC, YasudaA, et al.. Microsurgical anatomy of the diaphragma sellae and its role in directing the pattern of growth of pituitary adenomas. Neurosurgery, 2008, 62(3): 717-723

[6] LeeK, ParkeW, LinS, et al.. The vasculature of the diaphragma sellae: A postmortem injection study. Neuroradiology, 1978, 16: 281-283

[7] HornigG, ZervasN. Slit defect of the diaphragma sellae with valve effect: Observation of a “slit valve. ” Neurosurgery, 1992, 30(2): 265-267

[8] FerreriA, GarridoS, MarkarianM, et al.. Relationship between the development of diaphragma sellae and the morphology of the sella turcica and its content. Surg Radiol Anat, 1992, 14(3): 233-239

[9] DanielsD, PojunasK, KilgoreD, et al.. MR of the diaphragm sellae. AJNR, 1986, 7(5): 765-769

[10] WeiL, XiZ, LinS, et al.. MRI research of diaphragma sellae in patients with pituitary adenoma. Int J Clin Exp Med, 2015, 8(8): 12842-12849

[11] WilsonC. TindallG, CollinsW. Neurosurgical management of large and invasive pituitary tumors. Clinical management of pituitary disorders, 1979, New York, Raven Press: 335-342

[12] HardyJ. KohlerPO, RossGT. Transsphenoidal surgery of hypersecreting pituitary tumors. Diagnosis and treatment of pituitary tumors, 1973, New York, Excerpta Medica/American Elsevier: 179-194

[13] HardyJ. ThompsonRA, GreenR. Transsphenoidal surgery of intracranial neoplasm. Adv Neurol, 1976, New York, Raven Press: 261-274

[14] NoldenM, ZelzerS, SeitelA, et al.. The medical imaging interaction toolkit: Challenges and advances: 10 years of open-source development. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg, 2013, 8(4): 607-620

[15] SteinD, FritzscheKH, NoldenM, et al.. The extensible open-source rigid and affine image registration module of the Medical Imaging Interaction Toolkit (MITK). Comput Methods Programs Biomed, 2010, 100(1): 79-86

[16] AkbariH, MalekM, GhorbaniM, et al.. Clinical outcomes of endoscopic versus microscopic transsphenoidal surgery for large pituitary adenoma. Br J Neurosurg, 2018, 32(2): 206-209

[17] CusimanoMD, KanP, NassiriF, et al.. Outcomes of surgically treated giant pituitary tumours. Can J Neurol Sci, 2012, 39(4): 446-457

[18] AgrawalA, CincuR, GoelA. Current concepts and controversies in the management of non-functioning giant pituitary macroadenomas. Clin Neurol Neurosurg, 2007, 109(8): 645-650

[19] CappabiancaP, CavalloLM, EspositoF, et al.. Extended endoscopic endonasal approach to the midline skull base: the evolving role of transsphenoidal surgery. Adv Tech Stand Neurosurg, 2008, 33: 151-199

[20] McLaughlinN, EisenbergA, CohanP, et al.. Value of endoscopy for maximizing tumor removal in endonasal transsphenoidal pituitary adenoma surgery. J Neurosurg, 2013, 118(3): 613-620

[21] GondimJ, AlmeidaJ, AlbuquerqueL, et al.. Giant pituitary adenomas: surgical outcomes of 50 cases operated on by the endonasal endoscopicapproach. World Neurosurg, 2014, 82(1-2): 281-290