Evidence Hub

Safety and efficacy of endoscopic vs. microscopic approaches in pituitary adenoma surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

N. Al-dardery, A. Khaity, Y. Soliman, M. O. Ali, E. Zedan, K. Muyasarah, M. Elfakhrany

Neurosurgical review, 2025

38,301 participants · 9 citations

Abstract

Pituitary adenomas (PAs) represent a prevalent category of intracranial tumors, frequently resulting in endocrine dysfunction and neurological impairments. Transsphenoidal surgery (TSS) serves as the primary treatment modality, with the endoscopic transsphenoidal approach (ETSA) and microscopic transsphenoidal approach (MTSA) representing the two principal techniques. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess and compare the outcomes of ETSA and MTSA in treating PAs. A literature search was performed across PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. A total of 31 studies comprising 38,301 patients were included. The primary outcomes assessed were gross total resection (GTR) and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak rates. Secondary outcomes encompass endocrine and surgical complications and mortality rates. Statistical analyses utilized R software, employing random-effects models. The analysis indicated insignificant differences in GTR rates between ETSA and MTSA (RR: 1.05, 95% CI [0.97, 1.15]) or in CSF leak rates (RR: 1.03, 95% CI [0.82, 1.31]). Meta-regression analysis revealed that nonfunctional tumors correlated with increased GTR rates, regardless of the surgical technique employed. No notable differences were detected in endocrine or surgical complications between the two methods. Notably, meta-regression analysis indicated that nonfunctional tumors and higher Knosp grade tumors are more likely to be completely resected. Moreover, larger…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 38,301 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free