• Home
  • Practice Focus
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
    • How I Do It
    • TRIO Best Practices
  • Business of Medicine
    • Health Policy
    • Legal Matters
    • Practice Management
    • Tech Talk
    • AI
  • Literature Reviews
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
  • Career
    • Medical Education
    • Professional Development
    • Resident Focus
  • ENT Perspectives
    • ENT Expressions
    • Everyday Ethics
    • From TRIO
    • The Great Debate
    • Letter From the Editor
    • Rx: Wellness
    • The Voice
    • Viewpoint
  • TRIO Resources
    • Triological Society
    • The Laryngoscope
    • Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
    • TRIO Combined Sections Meetings
    • COSM
    • Related Otolaryngology Events
  • Search

Surgical Resection of Pediatric Skull Base Tumors: Expanded Endonasal Approaches Compare Well with Traditional Transcranial Approaches

by Amy E. Hamaker • February 7, 2020

  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
Print-Friendly Version

What is the potential effect of the expanded endonasal approach (EEA) on midfacial growth due to surgical resection of skull base tumors in children?

Bottom line: There was no difference in midfacial growth measurements between EEA and open-route patients after three years of imaging follow-up.

You Might Also Like

  • Analysis of Post-Endoscopic Endonasal Approach Shows Sinus Pressure When Sneezing May Depend on Anatomy
  • Novel Bioabsorbable Plate Associated with Lower Leak Risk in Patients Receiving Endoscopic Skull Base Repair
  • Stereotactic Radiotherapy Treats Skull Base Tumors: Part 2 of
  • Can Posterior Septal Nasal Floor Mucosal Flap During Skull Base Reconstruction Repair Cerebrospinal Fluid Leaks?
Explore This Issue
February 2020

BACKGROUND: Definitive treatment of pediatric skull base tumors has been traditionally accomplished via an open transcranial approach. The EEA to the cranial fossa allows for excellent visualization through an anterior midline approach. There have long been concerns that iatrogenic damage to the nasal growth zones that drive midfacial development during adolescence would result in lasting midfacial deformity.

Cephalometric analysis. Measurements included (A) anterior midface height (nasion–subspinale), (B) posterior midface height (sella–posterior nasal spine), (C) palate length (subspinale–posterior nasal spine), and (D) sella–nasion distance. © 2019 The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.

Cephalometric analysis. Measurements included (A) anterior midface height (nasion–subspinale), (B) posterior midface height (sella–posterior nasal spine), (C) palate length (subspinale–posterior nasal spine), and (D) sella–nasion distance.
© 2019 The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of 22 children undergoing craniopharyngioma resection from Jan. 1, 2003, to Dec. 1, 2014, via an open transcranial (10) or EEA (12), with three years of imaging follow-up.

SETTING: Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Penn., USA.

SYNOPSIS: All patients had craniopharyngioma on final pathology. In the EEA group, two of 12 patients were female, and the average age at presentation was 7.92 years. In the open group, seven of 10 patients were female, and the average age at presentation was 6.4 years. Mean duration of follow-up from baseline cephalometric measurement was significantly longer in the open group. Tumor size was significantly larger in the open group (47.8 mm) than in the EEA group (37.5 mm). Open group patients were more likely to present with hydrocephalus than EEA patients. There was no significant difference in presence of cavernous sinus or suprasellar extension at diagnosis between groups. The study used established landmarks and linear measurements; the four cephalometric measurements were anterior midface height, posterior midface height, palate length, and sella–nasion distance. No significant differences were identified in any of the four measurements. Limitations include the study’s retrospective nature, relatively short duration of follow-up, and small sample size of pediatric patients undergoing an EEA.

CITATION: Parasher AK, Lerner DK, Glicksman JT, et al. The impact of expanded endonasal skull base surgery on midfacial growth in pediatric patients. Laryngoscope. 2020;130:338-342.

Filed Under: Head and Neck, Head and Neck, Literature Reviews Tagged With: clinical best practices, clinical outcomesIssue: February 2020

You Might Also Like:

  • Analysis of Post-Endoscopic Endonasal Approach Shows Sinus Pressure When Sneezing May Depend on Anatomy
  • Novel Bioabsorbable Plate Associated with Lower Leak Risk in Patients Receiving Endoscopic Skull Base Repair
  • Stereotactic Radiotherapy Treats Skull Base Tumors: Part 2 of
  • Can Posterior Septal Nasal Floor Mucosal Flap During Skull Base Reconstruction Repair Cerebrospinal Fluid Leaks?

The Triological SocietyENTtoday is a publication of The Triological Society.

Polls

Would you choose a concierge physician as your PCP?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
  • Polls Archive

Top Articles for Residents

  • Applications Open for Resident Members of ENTtoday Edit Board
  • How To Provide Helpful Feedback To Residents
  • Call for Resident Bowl Questions
  • New Standardized Otolaryngology Curriculum Launching July 1 Should Be Valuable Resource For Physicians Around The World
  • Do Training Programs Give Otolaryngology Residents the Necessary Tools to Do Productive Research?
  • Popular this Week
  • Most Popular
  • Most Recent
    • A Journey Through Pay Inequity: A Physician’s Firsthand Account

    • The Dramatic Rise in Tongue Tie and Lip Tie Treatment

    • Otolaryngologists Are Still Debating the Effectiveness of Tongue Tie Treatment

    • Rating Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Severity: How Do Two Common Instruments Compare?

    • Is Middle Ear Pressure Affected by Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Use?

    • The Dramatic Rise in Tongue Tie and Lip Tie Treatment

    • Rating Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Severity: How Do Two Common Instruments Compare?

    • Is Middle Ear Pressure Affected by Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Use?

    • Otolaryngologists Are Still Debating the Effectiveness of Tongue Tie Treatment

    • Complications for When Physicians Change a Maiden Name

    • Excitement Around Gene Therapy for Hearing Restoration
    • “Small” Acts of Kindness
    • How To: Endoscopic Total Maxillectomy Without Facial Skin Incision
    • Science Communities Must Speak Out When Policies Threaten Health and Safety
    • Observation Most Cost-Effective in Addressing AECRS in Absence of Bacterial Infection

Follow Us

  • Contact Us
  • About Us
  • Advertise
  • The Triological Society
  • The Laryngoscope
  • Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Cookies

Wiley

Copyright © 2025 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 1559-4939