SpringerLink
Log in

A single centre’s experience of managing spheno-orbital meningiomas: lessons for recurrent tumour surgery

  • Original Article - Tumor - Meningioma
  • Published:
Acta Neurochirurgica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Spheno-orbital meningiomas are complex tumours involving the sphenoid wing and orbit. Various surgical strategies are available but treatment remains challenging and patients often require more than one surgical procedure. This study evaluated whether smaller surgical approaches and newer reconstructive methods impacted the surgical and clinical outcomes of patients undergoing repeat surgery.

Methods

We retrospectively analysed the medical records of consecutive patients who underwent surgery for a spheno-orbital meningioma at a single tertiary centre between 2005 and 2016. We recorded procedural details and analysed complications, postoperative visual status and patient-reported cosmetic outcome.

Results

Thirty-four procedures were performed in 31 patients (M:F 12:22, median age 49 years) including 19 (56%) primary operations and 15 (44%) repeat procedures. Seven patients (20.5%) had a pterional craniotomy, 19 (56%) had a standard orbitozygomatic craniotomy and 8 (23.5%) underwent a modified mini-orbitozygomatic craniotomy. Calvarial reconstruction was required in 19 cases with a variety of techniques used including titanium mesh (63%), PEEK (26%) and split calvarial bone graft (5%). Total tumour resection (Simpson grade I–II) was significantly higher in patients undergoing primary surgery compared with those having repeat surgery (41% and 0%, respectively; p = 0.0036). Complications occurred in 14 cases (41%). Proptosis improved in all patients and visual acuity improved or remained stable in 93% of patients. Cosmetic outcome measures were obtained for 18 patients (1 = very poor; 5 = excellent): 1–2, 0%; 3, 33%; 4, 28%; 5, 39%. Tumour recurrence requiring further surgery occurred in four patients (12%). There was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between patients undergoing primary or repeat surgery.

Conclusion

Spheno-orbital meningiomas are highly complex tumours. Surgical approaches should be tailored to the patient but good clinical and cosmetic outcomes may be achieved with a smaller craniotomy and custom-made implants, irrespective of whether the operation is the patient’s first procedure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (France)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Forster MT, Daneshvar K, Senft C, Seifert V, Marquardt G (2014) Sphenoorbital meningiomas: surgical management and outcome. Neurol Res 36(8):695–700

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Freeman JL, Davern MS, Oushy S, Sillau S, Ormond DR, Youssef AS, Lillehei KO (2017) Spheno-orbital meningiomas: a 16-year surgical experience. World Neurosurg 99:369–380

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Saeed P, van Furth WR, Tanck M et al (2011) Natural history of spheno-orbital meningiomas. Acta Neurochir 153(2):395–402

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Terrier LM, Bernard F, Fournier HD, Morandi X, Velut S, Henaux PL, Amelot A, Francois P (2018) Spheno-orbital Meningiomas surgery: multicenter management study for complex extensive tumors. World Neurosurg 112:e145–e156

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Rangel-Castilla L, Russin JJ, Spetzler RF (2016) Surgical management of skull base tumors. Rep Pr Oncol Radiother 21(4):325–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Agrawal A, Garg LN (2011) Split calvarial bone graft for the reconstruction of skull defects. J Surg Tech Case Rep 3(1):13–16

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Artico M, Ferrante L, Pastore FS, Ramundo EO, Cantarelli D, Scopelliti D, Iannetti G (2003) Bone autografting of the calvaria and craniofacial skeleton: historical background, surgical results in a series of 15 patients, and review of the literature. Surg Neurol 60(1):71–79

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Neligan PC, Boyd JB (1995) Reconstruction of the cranial base defect. Clin Plast Surg 22(1):71–77

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sahoo N, Roy ID, Desai AP, Gupta V (2010) Comparative evaluation of autogenous calvarial bone graft and alloplastic materials for secondary reconstruction of cranial defects. J Craniofac Surg 21(1):79–82

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Yadla S, Campbell PG, Chitale R, Maltenfort MG, Jabbour P, Sharan AD (2011) Effect of early surgery, material, and method of flap preservation on cranioplasty infections: a systematic review. Neurosurgery 68(4):1124–1129 discussion 1130

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Seckin H, Avci E, Uluc K, Niemann D, Baskaya MK (2008) The work horse of skull base surgery: orbitozygomatic approach. Technique, modifications, and applications. Neurosurg Focus 25(6):E4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hakuba A, Liu S, Nishimura S (1986) The orbitozygomatic infratemporal approach: a new surgical technique. Surg Neurol 26(3):271–276

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Pellerin P, Lesoin F, Dhellemmes P, Donazzan M, Jomin M (1984) Usefulness of the orbitofrontomalar approach associated with bone reconstruction for frontotemporosphenoid meningiomas. Neurosurgery 15(5):715–718

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Jumah F, Adeeb N, Dossani RH (2018) Collin S. MacCarty (1915-2003): inventor of the ‘MacCarty Keyhole’ as the starting burr hole for orbitozygomatic craniotomy. World Neurosurg 111:269–274

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Tubbs RS, Loukas M, Shoja MM, Cohen-Gadol AA (2010) Refined and simplified surgical landmarks for the MacCarty keyhole and orbitozygomatic craniotomy. Neurosurgery 66(6 Suppl Operative):230–233

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Zabramski JM, Kiriş T, Sankhla SK, Cabiol J, Spetzler RF (1998) Orbitozygomatic craniotomy. J Neurosurg 89(2):336–341

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Tanriover N, Ulm AJ, Rhoton AL Jr, Kawashima M, Yoshioka N, Lewis SB (2006) One-piece versus two-piece orbitozygomatic craniotomy: quantitative and qualitative considerations. Neurosurgery 58(4 Suppl 2):ONS-229–ONS-237 discussion ONS-237

    Google Scholar 

  18. Lemole GM Jr, Henn JS, Zabramski JM, Spetzler RF (2003) Modifications to the orbitozygomatic approach. Technical note J Neurosurg 99(5):924–930

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Shah AM, Jung H, Skirboll S (2014) Materials used in cranioplasty: a history and analysis. Neurosurg Focus 36(4):E19

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Zanotti B, Zingaretti N, Verlicchi A, Robiony M, Alfieri A, Parodi PC (2016) Cranioplasty: review of materials. J Craniofac Surg 27(8):2061–2072

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Zhang Q, Yuan Y, Li X, Sun T, Zhou Y, Yu H, Guan J (2018) A large multicenter retrospective research on embedded cranioplasty and covered cranioplasty. World Neurosurg 112:e645–e651

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Bikmaz K, Mrak R, Al-Mefty O (2007) Management of bone-invasive, hyperostotic sphenoid wing meningiomas. J Neurosurg 107(5):905–912

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Boari N, Gagliardi F, Spina A, Bailo M, Franzin A, Mortini P (2013) Management of spheno-orbital en plaque meningiomas: clinical outcome in a consecutive series of 40 patients. Br J Neurosurg 27(1):84–90

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Cannon PS, Rutherford SA, Richardson PL, King A, Leatherbarrow B (2009) The surgical management and outcomes for spheno-orbital meningiomas: a 7-year review of multi-disciplinary practice. Orbit 28(6):371–376

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Civit T, Freppel S (2010) Sphenoorbital meningiomas. Neurochirurgie 56(2–3):124–131

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Franquet N, Pellerin P, Dhellemmes P, Defoort-Dhellemmes S (2009) Ophthalmologic characteristics of spheno-orbital meningiomas: a series of 23 surgical cases. J Fr Ophtalmol 32(1):16–19

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Heufelder MJ, Sterker I, Trantakis C, Schneider JP, Meixensberger J, Hemprich A, Frerich B (2009) Reconstructive and ophthalmologic outcomes following resection of spheno-orbital meningiomas. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 25(3):223–226

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Honeybul S, Neil-Dwyer G, Lang DA, Evans BT, Ellison DW (2001) Sphenoid wing meningioma en plaque: a clinical review. Acta Neurochir 143(8):749–757 discussion 758

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Honig S, Trantakis C, Frerich B, Sterker I, Schober R, Meixensberger J (2010) Spheno-orbital meningiomas: outcome after microsurgical treatment: a clinical review of 30 cases. Neurol Res 32(3):314–325

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. de JO, Toledo MM (2001) Surgical management of meningioma en plaque of the sphenoid ridge. Surg Neurol 55(5):265–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Leroy HA, Leroy-Ciocanea CI, Baroncini M, Bourgeois P, Pellerin P, Labreuche J, Duhamel A, Lejeune JP (2016) Internal and external spheno-orbital meningioma varieties: different outcomes and prognoses. Acta Neurochir 158(8):1587–1596

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Li Y, Shi JT, An YZ, Zhang TM, Fu JD, Zhang JL, Zhao JZ (2009) Sphenoid wing meningioma en plaque: report of 37 cases. Chin Med J 122(20):2423–2427

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Marcus H, Schwindack C, Santarius T, Mannion R, Kirollos R (2013) Image-guided resection of spheno-orbital skull-base meningiomas with predominant intraosseous component. Acta Neurochir 155(6):981–988

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Mariniello G, Maiuri F, Strianese D, Donzelli R, Iuliano A, Tranfa F, de Divitiis E, Bonavolonta G (2008) Spheno-orbital meningiomas: surgical approaches and outcome according to the intraorbital tumor extent. Zentralbl Neurochir 69(4):175–181

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Mirone G, Chibbaro S, Schiabello L, Tola S, George B (2009) En plaque sphenoid wing meningiomas: recurrence factors and surgical strategy in a series of 71 patients. Neurosurgery 65(6 Suppl):100–109

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Oya S, Sade B, Lee JH (2011) Sphenoorbital meningioma: surgical technique and outcome. J Neurosurg 114(5):1241–1249

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Ringel F, Cedzich C, Schramm J (2007) Microsurgical technique and results of a series of 63 spheno-orbital meningiomas. Neurosurgery 60(4 Suppl 2):212–214

    Google Scholar 

  38. Sandalcioglu IE, Gasser T, Mohr C, Stolke D, Wiedemayer H (2005) Spheno-orbital meningiomas: interdisciplinary surgical approach, resectability and long-term results. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 33(4):260–266

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Scarone P, Leclerq D, Heran F, Robert G (2009) Long-term results with exophthalmos in a surgical series of 30 sphenoorbital meningiomas. Clinical article J Neurosurg 111(5):1069–1077

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Schick U (2010) Sphenoorbital meningiomas: results in long-term treatment. HNO 58(1):37–43

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Shrivastava RK, Sen C, Costantino PD, Della Rocca R (2005) Sphenoorbital meningiomas: surgical limitations and lessons learned in their long-term management. J Neurosurg 103(3):491–497

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Talacchi A, De Carlo A, D’Agostino A, Nocini P (2014) Surgical management of ocular symptoms in spheno-orbital meningiomas. Is orbital reconstruction really necessary? Neurosurg Rev 37(2):301–310

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurosurgery, King’s College Hospital, London, SE5 9RS, UK

    Jonathan Shapey, J. Jung, K. Barkas, R. Gullan, S. Barazi & N. W. Thomas

  2. Department of Neurosurgery, Hellenic Red Cross Hospital, Athens, Greece

    K. Barkas

  3. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, King’s College Hospital, London, UK

    R. Bentley & C. Huppa

Authors
  1. Jonathan Shapey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Jung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. K. Barkas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. R. Gullan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. S. Barazi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. R. Bentley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. C. Huppa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. N. W. Thomas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonathan Shapey.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Statement of informed consent

This study was approved by the institution’s research committee without the need for informed consent.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Tumor - Meningioma

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shapey, J., Jung, J., Barkas, K. et al. A single centre’s experience of managing spheno-orbital meningiomas: lessons for recurrent tumour surgery. Acta Neurochir 161, 1657–1667 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-019-03977-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-019-03977-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation