<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">IJOHNS</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>International Journal of Otolaryngology and Head &amp; Neck Surgery</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2168-5452</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/ijohns.2016.53023</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">IJOHNS-66491</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Medicine&amp;Healthcare</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  Visual Disorders Outcome after Endoscopic Endonasal Trans-Sphenoidal Surgery of Pituitary Macroadenomas
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Wissame</surname><given-names>El Bakkouri</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Picard</surname><given-names>Herv&amp;eacute;</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Brice</surname><given-names>Dzidzinyo</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"><sup>3</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Abdellaoui</surname><given-names>Anis</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Boyeldieu</surname><given-names>Louise</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Corr&amp;eacute;</surname><given-names>Alain</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Vignal</surname><given-names>Catherine</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"><sup>3</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Boucenna</surname><given-names>Malika</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff4"><sup>4</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Ayache</surname><given-names>Denis</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff2"><addr-line>Clinical Research Unit, Fondation Ophtalmologique Adolphe de Rothschild, Paris, France</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>ENT Department, Fondation Ophtalmologique Adolphe de Rothschild, Paris, France</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff3"><addr-line>OPH Department, Fondation Ophtalmologique Adolphe de Rothschild, Paris, France</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff4"><addr-line>Radiological Department, Fondation Ophtalmologique Adolphe de Rothschild, Paris, France</addr-line></aff><author-notes><corresp id="cor1">* E-mail:<email>welbakkouri@for.paris(WEB)</email>;</corresp></author-notes><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>10</day><month>05</month><year>2016</year></pub-date><volume>05</volume><issue>03</issue><fpage>134</fpage><lpage>140</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>21</day>	<month>March</month>	<year>2016</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>accepted</day>	<month>14</month>	<year>May</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>17</day>	<month>May</month>	<year>2016</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  Objective: Describe the outcome of visual disorders after endonasal transsphenoidal (EET) surgery of pituitary macroadenomas with preoperative chiasmal compression. Patients and Methods: From 2009 to 2013, 225 patients underwent EET surgery for sellar tumor. Among them, 168 suffered from visual disorders induced by chiasmatic compression, of which 88 met the inclusion criteria for this study. Average duration of follow up was 1.8 yrs &#177; 0.4 yrs. All patients had sellar MRI before surgery and yearly postoperatively, visual acuity (VA) and/or visual field (VF) measurements before, 3 months after surgery and yearly postoperatively. Results: All tumors were macroadenomas with a mean preoperative MRI-estimated volume of 10.0 {plus minus} 9.07 cm
  <sup>3</sup>. Preoperative VA was impaired with an average of 0.43 &#177; 0.13 LogMAR (left eye) and 0.36 &#177; 0.14 LogMAR (right eye) and VF was disturbed in 99% &#177; 2% of the cases with the most frequent disorder being bitemporal hemianopsia (38 patients). Post-operatively, the mean residual MRI-estimated tumor volume was 3.15 &#177; 3.71 cm
  <sup>3</sup>. Mean tumor volume reduction was 62% &#177; 9% (p &lt; 0.001). Optic chiasmal compression resolved in 72% &#177; 10% of the cases. Visual function improved in 86% &#177; 7% of cases (p &lt; 0.001). Conclusion: Endoscopic endonasal management of pituitary gland neoplasms is effective to reduce tumor volume. This technique achieved significant visual improvement in the majority of cases presenting with chiasmal compression syndrome.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Pituitary</kwd><kwd> Macroadenoma</kwd><kwd> Visual Disorder</kwd><kwd> Chiasm Compression</kwd><kwd> Endoscopy</kwd><kwd> Transsphenoidal</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>Pituitary adenomas accounts for about 10% of intracranial tumors among which 14% to 28% are non-function- ing adenomas [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.66491-ref1">1</xref>] - [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.66491-ref3">3</xref>] . Such cases spontaneously grow up yielding to typical visual disorders related to optic chiasmal compression. Nowadays, the incidence of optic chiasmal compression is observed with MRI in 9% of the pituitary macroadenomas [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.66491-ref4">4</xref>] . More rarely, involvement of the cavernous sinus leads to oculomotor symptoms. Such complications justify surgery to avoid visual degradation and to stop tumor growth progression. Endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal (EET) surgery proved to be an effective procedure for such cases [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.66491-ref2">2</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.66491-ref5">5</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.66491-ref6">6</xref>] .</p><p>The aim of this retrospective study was to analyze visual outcome after EET surgery for pituitary macroadenomas.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Patients and Methods</title><p>From 2009 to 2013, 225 patients underwent surgical resection of pituitary tumors via endoscopic endonasal trans-sphenoidal approach. From this cohort, we retrospectively collected cases with visual impairment due to optic chiasmal compression by pituitary macroadenoma. Inclusion criteria were: 1) preoperative visual impairment (defined by visual loss and/or campimetric deficit and/or other symptoms like a diplopia); 2) pre and post operative MRI and visual status available; 3) histologically proven pituitary adenoma; 4) minimum of 3 months follow-up after surgery. Among 225 patients, 168 presented visual impairment from chiasm compression, and 88 cases met criteria for inclusion.</p><p>39 patients were females and 49 males (sex ratio 1.26). Mean age at surgery was 54.53 &#177; 3.01 years. All tumors were macroadenomas (n = 76; diameter ≥ 10 mm) or giant adenomas (n = 12; diameter ≥ 40 mm). The majority of tumors were gonadotropic (n = 72 patients). Baseline characteristics are summarized in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>.</p><p>All the patients had a preoperative MRI evaluation of the size of the pituitary adenoma and a CT scan to preoperatively study nasal fossa, sinus and skull base anatomy and for surgical navigation guidance. Tumor volume has been approximated based on MRI measurements, using an ellipsoid model (volume = 4/3 &#215; π &#215; 1/2 d<sub>1</sub> &#215; 1/2 d<sub>2</sub> &#215; 1/2 d<sub>3</sub>) where d<sub>1</sub>, d<sub>2</sub> and d<sub>3</sub> are the maximum tumor diameter in the orthogonal spatial axes [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.66491-ref7">7</xref>] .</p><p>All the patients had a visual evaluation including measurement of visual acuity (VA) and/or visual field (VF)</p><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> Pre operative patients characteristics</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Number of patients (n)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Sex</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Men</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >49</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Women</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >39</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean age</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >54.53 yrs &#177; 3.01 yrs</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="6"  >Histological type of the tumor</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Gonadotrophic</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >72</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Prolactinoma</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Corticotrophic</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Multi</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Somatotrophic</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Thyreotrophic</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >Extrasellar extension</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Suprasellar component</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >77 Yes/8 No</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Laterosellar component</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5 Yes/80 No</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Inferior extension</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14 Yes/71 No</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >Onset of the visual acuity impairment</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Acute (pituitary apoplexy)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Rapid</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Progressive</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >Number of surgical interventions</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >One</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >88</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Two</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >More than two</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Radiotherapy or radiosurgery</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>by Goldman or Humphrey perimeter. VA impairment was expressed in LogMAR (LogMAR 0 corresponding to a perfect vision and LogMAR 2.3 to a very low vision).</p><p>All the patients underwent EET removal of the tumor with neuronavigation guidance. The surgery was carried out by a team comprising a neurosurgeon and an ENT surgeon, both experienced in “four hands” EE surgery. The surgical goals were to achieve maximum decompression of the optic chiasm, to remove as much as possible of the tumoral volume and to provide tissue for histological analysis.</p><p>Two major criteria were assessed: diminution of the MRI-estimated tumor volume, and visual outcome measured by VA and/or VF at the last follow-up visit.</p><p>The mean postoperative follow up was of 1.8 &#177; 0.4 years.</p>Statistical Analysis<p>Data were retrieved from the patient’s hospital files, encoded in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and analyzed using the R statistical package. Means were compared before/after surgery using paired Student’s test and proportions were compared using Mc Nemar test with Yates correction, with alpha 5%. Confidence intervals are 95%.</p></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Results</title><sec id="s3_1"><title>3.1. Tumor Volume</title><p>Preoperative tumor volume was 10.0 &#177; 9.07 cm<sup>3</sup>. Postoperatively, the mean residual MRI-estimated tumor volume was 3.15 &#177; 3.71 mm3 (p &lt; 0.001).</p><p>Reduction of the tumor was superior to 70% of its initial volume in 50% of the cases (n = 44); resection was near-complete (more than 90% reduction of the tumoral volume) in 23.8% of the cases (n = 21) (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref> and <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>).</p></sec><sec id="s3_2"><title>3.2. Visual Function</title><p>Prior to surgery, 4.5% of the patients (n = 4) presented a pituitary apoplexy and were not tested because of the surgical emergency of the case. Among the whole cohort, 6.8% of the patients (n = 6) had diplopia despite no visual defect or VF abnormality.</p><p>The mean preoperative VA impairment was 0.43 &#177; 0.13 LogMAR for the left eye and 0.36 &#177; 0.14 LogMAR</p><fig id="fig1"  position="float"><label><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref></label><caption><title> Reduction of the tumor volume after surgical intervention</title></caption><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/5-2460394x7.png"/></fig><fig id="fig2"  position="float"><label><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref></label><caption><title> % rediction of tumor volume after surgery</title></caption><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/5-2460394x8.png"/></fig><fig id="fig3"  position="float"><label><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref></label><caption><title> Visual acuity gain (LogMAR) after surgery for the left eye (mean gain was 0.24 &#177; 0.13 LogMAR)</title></caption><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/5-2460394x9.png"/></fig><p>for the right eye.</p><p>The mean postoperative VA impairment was of 0.16 &#177; 0.1 LogMAR for the left eye and of 0.16 &#177; 0.11 LogMAR for the right eye (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref> and <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">Figure 4</xref>). Mean VA impairment after surgery was 0.24 &#177; 0.13 LogMAR for the left eye and 0.24 &#177; 0.12 LogMAR for the right eye. The difference before/after surgery was significant (p &lt; 0.01).</p><p>If comparing pre and postoperative VA, data were available for 63 patients. There was a clinically significant improvement of the VA (average VA of both eyes improving by 0.2 LogMAR or more) in 47% of the cases (n = 30/63).</p><p>Preoperatively, 81 patients had a VF evaluation among whom 46.9% (n = 38) had a bitemporal hemianopsia and 1.2% (n = 1) had no VF cut (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>).</p><p>Assessment of VF 3 months after surgery was performed in 78 patients. It showed complete recovery in 15 cases, partial recovery in 27 cases and no improvement in 36 cases (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>).</p></sec></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Discussion</title><p>EET surgery is a widely accepted procedure for the resection of micro, macro and giant pituitary adenoma [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.66491-ref1">1</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.66491-ref5">5</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.66491-ref8">8</xref>] - [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.66491-ref10">10</xref>] . It allows total resection in almost 20% of the cases in macroadenomas and giant adenom Apr;</p><fig id="fig4"  position="float"><label><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">Figure 4</xref></label><caption><title> Visual acuity gain (LogMAR) after surgery for the right eye (mean gain was 0.24 &#177; 0.12 LogMAR)</title></caption><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/5-2460394x10.png"/></fig><table-wrap id="table2" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> Pre operative visual field (VF) abnormalities</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >VF impairment</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Frequence</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Number of patients</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bitemporal hemianopsia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >46.9%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >38</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Lateral homonymous hemianopsia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.9%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Other VF cut</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30.9%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Unilateral hemianopsia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >No VF abnormality</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.2%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >TOTAL</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >81</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table3" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref></label><caption><title> Post operative visual field abnormalities</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >VF impairment</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Frequence</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Number of patients</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bitemporal hemianopsia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.5%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Lateral homonymous hemianopsia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.8%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Other VF cut</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >52.6%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Unilateral hemianopsia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.8%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >No VF abnormality</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19.2%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >TOTAL</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >78</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>158(4): 677-683 as [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.66491-ref2">2</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.66491-ref11">11</xref>] . Other series conclude to total resection achieved in 38% to 66% of the cases, even for giant adenomas involving the cavernous sinus [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.66491-ref1">1</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.66491-ref3">3</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.66491-ref12">12</xref>] - [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.66491-ref14">14</xref>] . Such encouraging results are explained by an improved panoramic visualization with EET, particularly for structures like the optic-carotid recess and the diaphragm sella. In case of visual impairment, EET is also indicated and yields good results [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.66491-ref3">3</xref>] . In our article, reduction of the tumor was superior to 70% of its initial volume in 50% of the cases. There was a clinically significant improvement of the VA in 47% of the cases (n = 30/63). We observed 17% of complete recovery of the VA and 19.23% of complete recovery of the VF (n = 15/78).</p><sec id="s4_1"><title>4.1. Visual Tests</title><p>Between 2009 and 2013, 225 patients underwent EET resection of a sellar tumor at our institution. Among them 168 (74.6%) presented visual disorders, in agreement with results reported in the literature with rates ranging from 31% to 89% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.66491-ref1">1</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.66491-ref4">4</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.66491-ref6">6</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.66491-ref15">15</xref>] - [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.66491-ref17">17</xref>] . In our series, 88 patients met inclusion criteria. Other patients were not eligible for various reasons (early lost of follow-up, unavailable MRI or visual examination data, other histological type of tumor).</p><p>The functional results were better for VF (total recovery in 19.2% of the cases and partial recovery in 35%) than for VA (total recovery in 17% and improvement in 30% of the cases). This was noted in a series of juraska et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.66491-ref2">2</xref>] . On the other hand, Peter et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.66491-ref4">4</xref>] found better outcomes concerning VF than VA.</p><p>Cohen et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.66491-ref18">18</xref>] found an inverse correlation between the duration of visual symptoms and final outcome for both VF and VA.</p></sec><sec id="s4_2"><title>4.2. MRI</title><p>In the literature, many authors recommended calculating tumor volume rather than diameters because it is a significant predictor of imaging outcome on long-term follow-up [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.66491-ref13">13</xref>] . Hoffstetter et al. suggested a volume of ≥10 cm<sup>3</sup> as a modern definition of pituitary macroadenomas [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.66491-ref19">19</xref>] . However, as noted by Egger et al. simple methods as geometric models like the ellipsoidal model provide a rough approximation of the tumor volume [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.66491-ref7">7</xref>] .</p><p>In our retrospective study, tumor volume was estimated using an ellipsoid model. We believe that with this model, volumes may be underestimated but the results were consistent with those found in the literature [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.66491-ref20">20</xref>] . For Juraska et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.66491-ref2">2</xref>] , volumetric analysis provides a more accurate measurement of the extent of the resection than ellipsoidal volume calculation. In our series, we approximated the tumoral volume by calculating ellipsoidal volumes because native MRI was not always at the radiologist disposal to calculate volume using dedicated software.</p><p>Postoperatively, the residual tumor volume was 3.15 &#177; 3.71 cm<sup>3</sup> (p &lt; 0.01). As might be expected, the rate of residual tumor is higher in macro-adenoma (and giant adenoma), particularly in suprasellar and cavernous sinus spreading [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.66491-ref2">2</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.66491-ref13">13</xref>] . Juraska et al. reported complete resection in 24.2% in their series of 76 giant and large macro-adenomas [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.66491-ref2">2</xref>] . In our series, 23.8% of the patients had total or near total resection.</p></sec><sec id="s4_3"><title>4.3. Limits of the Study</title><p>This is a retrospective study so we couldn’t study the medical chart of the 225 operated on between 2009 and 2013 because of insufficient data. We decided to focus on pituitary adenomas excluding all other histological type of pituitary tumors because we don’t know the evolution of all types of tumors.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s5"><title>5. Conclusion</title><p>Visual disorders are common complications of pituitary adenoma natural growth. In this series, we found that endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal resection of macroadenoma with chiasm compression syndrome was reliable in improving visual impairment.</p></sec><sec id="s6"><title>Conflict of Interest</title><p>The authors have no personal financial or institutional interest in any of the drugs, materials or devices described in this article.</p></sec><sec id="s7"><title>Cite this paper</title><p>Wissame El Bakkouri,Picard Herv&#233;,Brice Dzidzinyo,Abdellaoui Anis,Boyeldieu Louise,Corr&#233; Alain,Vignal Catherine,Boucenna Malika,Ayache Denis, (2016) Visual Disorders Outcome after Endoscopic Endonasal Trans-Sphenoidal Surgery of Pituitary Macroadenomas. International Journal of Otolaryngology and Head &amp; Neck Surgery,05,134-140. doi: 10.4236/ijohns.2016.53023</p></sec><sec id="s8"><title>NOTES</title></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.66491-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Torales, J., Halperin, I., Hanzu, F., Mora, M., Alobid, I., De Notaris, M., et al. (2014) Endoscopic Endonasal Surgery for Pituitary Tumors. Results in a Series of 121 Patients Operated at the Same Center and by the Same Neurosurgeon. Endocrinología y Nutrición (English Edition), 61, 410-416. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.endoen.2014.07.002</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.66491-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Juraschka, K., Khan, O.H., Godoy, B.L., Monsalves, E., Kilian, A., Krischek, B., et al. (2014) Endoscopic Endonasal Transsphenoidal Approach to Large and Giant Pituitary Adenomas: Institutional Experience and Predictors of Extent of Resection. Journal of Neurosurgery, 121, 75-83. http://dx.doi.org/10.3171/2014.3.JNS131679</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.66491-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Gómez, R.C. (2014) Non-Functioning Pituitary Tumors: 2012 Update. Endocrinología y Nutrición (English Edition), 61, 160-170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.endoen.2014.02.011</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.66491-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Peter, M. and De Tribolet, N. (1995) Visual Outcome after Transsphenoidal Surgery for Pituitary Adenomas. British Journal of Neurosurgery, 9, 151-157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02688699550041485</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.66491-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ammirati, M., Wei, L. and Ciric, I. (2013) Short-Term Outcome of Endoscopic versus Microscopic Pituitary Adenoma Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery &amp; Psychiatry, 84, 843-849. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jnnp-2012-303194</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.66491-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Chone, C.T., Sampaio, M.H., Sa-kano, E., Paschoal, J.R., Garnes, H.M., Queiroz, L., et al. (2014) Endoscopic Endonasal Transsphenoidal resection of pituitary Adenomas: Preliminary Evaluation of Consecutive Cases. Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology, 80, 146-151. http://dx.doi.org/10.5935/1808-8694.20140030</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.66491-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Davies, B.M., Carr, E., Soh, C. and Gnanalingham, K.K. (2016) Assessing Size of Pituitary Adenomas: A Comparison of Qualitative and Quantitative Methods on MR. Acta Neurochirurgica (Wien), 158, 677-683.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.66491-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Cusimano, M.D., Kan, P., Nassiri, F., Anderson, J., Goguen, J., Vanek, I., et al. (2012) Outcomes of Surgically Treated Giant Pituitary Tumours. Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences, 39, 446-457. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0317167100013950</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.66491-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Koutourousiou, M., Gardner, P.A., Fernandez-Miranda, J.C., Paluzzi, A., Wang, E.W. and Snyderman, C.H. (2013) Endoscopic Endonasal Surgery for Giant Pituitary Adenomas: Advantages and Limitations. Journal of Neurosurgery, 118, 621-631. http://dx.doi.org/10.3171/2012.11.JNS121190</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.66491-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Yang, I., Wang, M.B. and Bergsneider, M. (2010) Making the Transition from Microsurgery to Endoscopic Trans- Sphenoidal Pituitary Neurosurgery. Neurosurgery Clinics of North America, 21, 643-651.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.66491-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Komotar, R.J., Starke, R.M., Raper, D.M.S., Anand, V.K. and Schwartz, T.H. (2012) Endoscopic Endonasal Compared with Microscopic Transsphenoidal and Open Transcranial Resection of Giant Pituitary Adenomas. Pituitary, 15, 150-159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11102-011-0359-3</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.66491-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Roelfsema, F., Biermasz, N.R. and Pereira, A.M. (2012) Clinical Factors Involved in the Recurrence of Pituitary Adenomas after Surgical Remission: A Structured Review and Meta-Analysis. Pituitary, 15, 71-83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11102-011-0347-7</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.66491-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Gopalan, R., Schlesinger, D., Vance, M.L., Laws, E. and Sheehan, J. (2011) Long-Term Outcomes after Gamma Knife Radiosurgery for Patients with a Nonfunctioning Pituitary Adenoma. Neurosurgery, 69, 284-293. http://dx.doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0b013e31821bc44e</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.66491-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Berkmann, S., Schlaffer, S., Nimsky, C., Fahlbusch, R. and Buchfelder, M. (2014) Follow-Up and Long-Term Outcome of Nonfunctioning Pituitary Adenoma Operated by Transsphenoidal Surgery with Intraoperative High-Field Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Acta Neurochirurgica (Wien), 156, 2233-2243. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00701-014-2210-x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.66491-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Paluzzi, A., Fernandez-Miranda, J.C., Tonya Stefko, S., Challinor, S., Snyderman, C.H. and Gardner, P.A. (2014) Endoscopic Endonasal Approach for Pituitary Adenomas: A Series of 555 Patients. Pituitary, 17, 307-319. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11102-013-0502-4</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.66491-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Robenshtok, E., Benbassat, C.A., Hirsch, D., Tzvetov, G., Cohen, Z.R., Iraqi, H.M., et al. (2014) Clinical Course and Outcome of Nonfunctioning Pituitary Adenomas in the Elderly Compared with Younger Age Groups. Endocrine Practice, 20, 159-164.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.66491-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Murad-Kejbou, S. and Eggenberger, E. (2009) Pituitary Apoplexy: Evaluation, Management, and Prognosis. Current Opinion in Ophthalmology, 20, 456-461. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ICU.0b013e3283319061</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.66491-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Cohen, A.R., Cooper, P.R., Kupersmith, M.J., Flamm, E.S. and Ran-sohoff, J. (1985) Visual Recovery after Transsphenoidal Removal of Pituitary Adenomas. Neurosurgery, 17, 446-452. http://dx.doi.org/10.1227/00006123-198509000-00008</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.66491-ref19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Hofstetter, C.P., Nanaszko, M.J., Mubita, L.L., Tsiouris, J., Anand, V.K. and Schwartz, T.H. (2012) Volumetric Classification of Pituitary Macroadenomas Predicts Outcome and Morbidity Following Endoscopic Endonasal Transsphenoidal Surgery. Pituitary, 15, 450-463. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11102-011-0350-z</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.66491-ref20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Egger, J., Kapur, T., Nimsky, C. and Kikinis, R. (2012) Pituitary Adenoma Volumetry with 3D Slicer. PloS One, 7, e51788. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0051788</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>