Application and Care of Two Kinds of Sphenoid Sinus Packing Materials after Pituitary Tumor Resection with the Transnasal Endoscopic Approach

Abstract

Background: Neuroendoscopic transsphenoidal approach for resection of pituitary adenomas has the advantages of less damage, fewer complications, and a faster recovery than the traditional approach and has beening favored by neurosurgeons. However, there has no standard method of selecting suitable packing materials after the operation to relieve pain in patients and achieve the ideal hemostatic effect. We compared the postoperative complications and treatment effects of two different packing materials in patients with pituitary adenomas. Objective: To investigate the advantages and disadvantages of using a catheter balloon and iodoform gauze for hemostasis in patients undergoing pituitary tumor resection by neuroendoscopic transsphenoidal approach. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed these data of 48 cases treated with pituitary adenoma resection by the single nasal approach from January 2018 to October 2019 in Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center. According to the type of sphenoid sinus packing material used, these patients were divided into balloon tamponade oppression group (24 cases) and tela iodoformum oppression group (24 cases), respectively. The balloon tamponade oppression group received catheter balloon tamponade oppression hemostasis, and the tela iodoformum oppression group underwent tela iodoformum oppression hemostasis. The outcomes and complications were compared between the two groups in which two kinds of sphenoid sinus packing materials were used for hemostasis after tumor resection by transnasal endoscopic approach. For the catheter balloon compression hemostasis method, on account of the plasticity of the balloon, the volume of water in the balloon can be adjusted according to the size of the patient’s own sphenoid cavity. The amount of bleeding and several complications in terms of discomfort during placement and removal of the packing material, rebleeding after removal of the packing, cerebrospinal fluid rhinorrhea and electrolyte disturbance are compared between the two groups. Results: 48 patients were enrolled. The two groups’ data of patients were similar in age structure, sex ratio, tumor size at baseline and so on. No complications, such as abscess formation, were found in both groups. The success rate in the compression with catheter balloon group was 100% (24 of 24 patients); and in the iodoform gauze group 83.33% (20 of 24 patients). A catheter balloon was more successful in stopping bleeding at early stage than iodoform gauze. There were no statistically significant differences in the hospitalization stay time, operating day to discharge day and tampon indwelling time (P > 0.05). There were also no significant differences in pairwise comparison between the catheter balloon group and iodoform gauze groups in the incidence of cerebrospinal fluid rhinorrhea or electrolyte disturbance between the two groups (P > 0.05). The incidence of headache in the catheter balloon group was statistically significantly lower than that in the iodoform gauze group (P < 0.05). Conclusion: In patients undergoing endoscopic pituitary tumor resection, compression and hemostasis by means of catheterization expansion lead to lower rates of injury and complications and have a good effect, so this method is worthy of being recommended for clinical practice.