Comparison of the Endoscopic Endonasal Approach with the Endoscopic Supraorbital Keyhole Approach to the Tuberculum Sellae Region: A Quantitatively Cadaveric Study

Background The endoscopic endonasal approach (EEA) and the endoscopic supraorbital keyhole approach (eSKA) provide minimally invasive access to tuberculum sellae (TS) tumors. Evaluation of the operating maneuverability is helpful for approach selection. Herein, we compared the two approaches and aimed to provide quantitative anatomic data for surgical decision-making in the management of TS lesions. Methods Fifteen dissections were performed on five silicone-injected cadaveric heads. The EEA and eSKA (both right and left) were performed on each head. Surgical freedom and working angles in the axial and sagittal planes were calculated using the stereotactic navigation system in the selected six targets: the midpoint of the leading edge of the sphenoid sinus (leSS), the midpoint of the edge of the dorsum sellae (eDS), the ipsilateral medial opticocarotid recess (imOCR), the contralateral medial opticocarotid recess (cmOCR), the ipsilateral lateral opticocarotid recess (ilOCR), and the contralateral lateral opticocarotid recess (clOCR). Results The surgical freedom at the ilOCR and the axial working angles at the leSS, ilOCR, and imOCR (imOCR with excessive manipulation of the optic apparatus) were greater in the eSKA. The EEA provided greater surgical freedom and/or working angles at most targets than eSKA (the surgical freedom at the imOCR, cmOCR, clOCR, and eDS; the axial working angles at the cmOCR and clOCR; and the sagittal working angles at the leSS, imOCR, cmOCR, clOCR, and eDS). Conclusion The EEA provides greater surgical freedom and working angles for paramedian lesions, whereas the eSKA provides better surgical maneuverability for lesions with lateral extension.