Midline Skull Base Meningiomas: Transcranial and Endonasal Perspectives

SIMPLE SUMMARY: Skull base meningiomas have always represented a challenge for neurosurgeons. Despite their histological nature, they may be associated with unfavorable outcomes due to their deep-seated location and the surrounding neurovascular structures. Over time, several corridors have been proposed, each one carrying its own pros and cons. During the last decades, the endoscopic endonasal route has been asserted among the classic routes for a growing number of midline and paramedian lesions. Therefore, the aim of our paper is to present a comprehensive review of the indications and techniques for the management of skull base meningiomas, emphasizing the ambivalent and complementary role of the low and high routes. ABSTRACT: Skull base meningiomas have always represented a challenge for neurosurgeons. Despite their histological nature, they may be associated with unfavorable outcomes due to their deep-seated location and the surrounding neurovascular structures. The state of the art of skull base meningiomas accounts for both transcranial, or high, and endonasal, or low, routes. A comprehensive review of the pertinent literature was performed to address the surgical strategies and outcomes of skull base meningioma patients treated through a transcranial approach, an endoscopic endonasal approach (EEA), or both. Three databases (PubMed, Ovid Medline, and Ovid Embase) have been searched. The review of the literature provided 328 papers reporting the surgical, oncological, and clinical results of different approaches for the treatment of skull base meningiomas. The most suitable surgical corridors for olfactory groove, tuberculum sellae, clival and petroclival and cavernous sinus meningiomas have been analyzed. The EEA was proven to be associated with a lower extent of resection rates and better clinical outcomes compared with transcranial corridors, offering the possibility of achieving the so-called maximal safe resection.