ABSTRACT
Objectives: Endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal adenomectomy (TSA) is the most frequently performed skull base surgery, and researchers have recently focused on preserving nasal function. The endoscopic transseptal approach is a promising procedure due to its reduced injury to the nasal mucosa; however, there are no studies comparing rhinological and neurosurgical outcomes concurrently with the standard endoscopic transnasal approach. Therefore, we conducted this study to investigate whether the transseptal approach could reduce nasal morbidities with comparable neurosurgical outcomes. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 25 patients who underwent endoscopic endonasal transseptal TSA for pituitary adenoma without encasement of internal carotid artery from January 2019 to December 2020. Another 25 patients who received transnasal approach from January 2017 to December 2018 were selected as controls. Patients with diseases affecting the nasal cavity/olfaction or usage of a nasoseptal flap were excluded for a better comparison of the two procedures. We collected data from radiological studies, endocrine studies, endoscopic evaluations, 22-item sinonasal outcome tests (SNOT-22) and Top International Biotech Smell Identification Test (TIBSIT) for comparison. Results: Lower postoperative SNOT-22 and Lund-Kennedy endoscopic scores were observed in the transseptal group. The effect size of differences were classified as large effect (The absolute value of Cohen's d > 0.8). Nevertheless, the TIBSIT scores were not significantly different. The rates of gross total resection, recovery of hormonal abnormalities, and complications were not significantly different. After controlling possible confounding factors using multivariate analysis, the endoscopic transseptal approach remained an independent factor for lower SNOT-22 scores and Lund-Kennedy endoscopic scores. Conclusions: The endoscopic transseptal approach provides improved recovery of nasal mucosa and intact olfaction without compromising neurosurgical outcomes. Level of Evidence: 2b.