In recent years, the endoscopic endonasal approach (EEA) for craniopharyngiomas has proven to be a safe option for extensive tumor resection, with minimal or no manipulation of the optic nerves and excellent visualization of the superior hypophyseal branches when compared to the Transcranial Approach (TCA). However, there is an ongoing debate regarding the criteria for selecting different approaches. To explore the current results of EEA and discuss its role in the management of craniopharyngiomas, we performed MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS searches from 2012 to 2022. Baseline characteristics, the extent of resection, and clinical outcomes were evaluated. Statistical analysis was performed through an X² and Fisher exact test, and a comparison between quantitative variables through a Kruskal–Wallis and verified with post hoc Bonferroni. The tumor volume was similar in both groups (EEA 11.92 cm³, -TCA 13.23 cm³). The mean follow-up in months was 39.9 for EEA and 43.94 for TCA, p = 0.76). The EEA group presented a higher visual improvement rate (41.96% vs. 25% for TCA, p < 0.0001, OR 7.7). Permanent DI was less frequent with EEA (29.20% vs. 67.40% for TCA, p < 0.0001, OR 0.2). CSF Leaks occurred more frequently with EEA (9.94% vs. 0.70% for TCA, p < 0.0001, OR 15.8). Recurrence rates were lower in the EEA group (EEA 15.50% vs. for TCA 21.20%, p = 0.04, OR 0.7). Our results demonstrate that, in selected cases, EEA for resection of craniopharyngiomas is associated with better results regarding visual preservation and extent of tumor resection. Postoperative CSF leak rates associated with EEA have improved compared to the historical series. The decision-making process should consider each person’s characteristics; however, it is noticeable that recent data regarding EEA justify its widespread application as a first-line approach in centers of excellence for skull base surgery.

Background: Minimally invasive approaches to the anterior cranial fossa have evolved over the past few decades. The management of frontal epidural abscesses (EDAs) secondary to diffuse sinusitis in the pediatric population using minimally invasive techniques is scarcely reported in the literature. Herein, we report the utilization of a minimally invasive eyebrow approach for multidisciplinary concurrent evacuation of frontal EDA secondary to diffuse sinusitis and trephination of the frontal sinus in three pediatric patients. Case Reports: Three pediatric patients presented to the emergency room with severe headaches, visual changes, somnolence, and significant facial and periorbital swelling. Imaging revealed diffuse sinusitis with focal frontal epidural extension. In all cases, progressive clinical deterioration along with the radiographic findings mandated urgent surgical intervention. The eyebrow approach allowed for concomitant evacuation of the frontal EDA and trephination of the frontal sinus followed by functional endoscopic sinus surgery in the same setting. All patients tolerated the procedure well with complete resolution of their symptoms at the completion of antibiotic therapy and complete resolution of the EDA. Conclusion: The eyebrow approach is a minimally invasive technique that should be considered as part of the armamentarium in the management of select EDA in the pediatric population. It allows for multidisciplinary collaboration between neurosurgeons and otolaryngologists for concomitant evacuation of the EDA and trephination of the frontal sinus. This approach is a feasible, safe, and effective minimally invasive technique that can be employed for the management of EDA secondary to diffuse sinusitis in the pediatric population.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Schwannomas are benign, slow-growing peripheral nerve sheath tumors. Approximately 8% of intracranial schwannomas originate from the trigeminal nerve. No consensus exists regarding superiority of outcomes after resection vs stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) in the treatment of trigeminal schwannomas (TS). The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and outcomes of resection vs SRS for TS management. METHODS: Embase, PubMed, and SCOPUS databases were queried from the date of inception to July 2023 for primary data reporting TS treatment outcomes after SRS or resection. Risk of bias was reported under Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Overall, 29 retrospective observational studies comprising 949 patients were included in the analysis. A total of 13 studies (n = 589) reported outcomes after SRS, and 16 studies (n = 360) reported outcomes after surgical resection, and 182 patients in the SRS group had previous resection. To ensure statistical validity of comparing the cohorts, 3 checkpoints were assessed: the median age (SRS: 48 vs surgery: 40 years old, P < .01), tumor volume (5.2 vs 8.9 cm³, P = .06), and median follow-up (53.9 vs 48.5 months, P = .59), which reflected the choice of treatment. Compared with surgical resection, the SRS group demonstrated significantly higher rates of facial hypesthesia improvement (44% vs 12%, P < .01) and lower rates of new onset (4% vs 15%, P = .051) at last follow-up. Facial pain was less likely to improve (58% vs 81%, P = .024) after SRS compared with surgery. However, worsened (5% vs 1%, P = .71) and new facial pain (2% vs 1%, P = .55) were comparable between cohorts. CONCLUSION: SRS seems to offer improvement in rates of hypesthesia and trigeminal motor deficits compared with surgical resection for TS. However, facial pain improvement was more favorable after surgery. These findings highlight the importance of individualized treatment decisions based on patient characteristics, tumor profile, and pretreatment symptoms.