POSTOPERATIVE OUTCOMES OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE VERSUS OPEN CRANIOTOMY IN PATIENTS WITH INTRACRANIAL TUMORS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.71000/vyjvmh70Keywords:
Intracranial Tumor, Minimally Invasive Craniotomy, Open Craniotomy, Systematic Review, Postoperative Outcomes, Neurosurgery.Abstract
Background: The comparative efficacy and safety of minimally invasive craniotomy (MIC) versus open craniotomy (OC) for brain tumor resection remains a pivotal clinical question. While MIC techniques aim to reduce surgical morbidity, a comprehensive synthesis of high-quality evidence is needed to guide surgical decision-making.
Objective: This systematic review aims to compare postoperative recovery, complication rates, and functional outcomes between MIC and OC in patients undergoing resection of intracranial tumors.
Methods: A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials and comparative observational studies published between 2019-2024. Two independent reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB 2 and Newcastle-Ottawa tools.
Results: Eight studies (n=1,823 patients) were included. MIC was associated with a significant reduction in estimated blood loss (mean difference: 150-275 mL, p<0.05) and length of hospital stay (reduction of 1.5-3.2 days, p<0.01) compared to OC. Complication rates, particularly for surgical site infection, were consistently lower in the MIC group. Crucially, there was no significant difference in the rate of gross total resection between the two approaches.
Conclusion: For appropriately selected intracranial tumors, minimally invasive craniotomy demonstrates superior perioperative outcomes compared to open craniotomy, including reduced blood loss, shorter hospitalization, and fewer complications, without compromising the extent of tumor resection. These findings support the selective use of MIC, though further high-quality randomized trials are warranted to strengthen the evidence base.
References
Ostrom QT, Price M, Neff C, et al. CBTRUS Statistical Report: Primary Brain and Other Central Nervous System Tumors Diagnosed in the United States in 2015–2019. Neuro Oncol. 2022;24(Suppl 5):v1–v95.
Brown TJ, Brennan MC, Li M, et al. Association of the Extent of Resection With Survival in Glioblastoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2(11):1460–1469.
Soto JM, Nguyen AV, van Zyl JS, Huang JH. Outcomes after supratentorial craniotomy for primary malignant brain tumor resection in adult patients: A national surgical quality improvement program analysis. World Neurosurgery. 2023 Jul 1;175:e780-9.
Ratre S, Yadav YR, Parihar VS, Kher Y. Micro endoscopy-Based Minimally Invasive Keyhole Craniotomy for Supratentorial Glioma. Neurol India. 2020;68(5):1092-1101.
Marenco-Hillembrand L, Suarez-Meade P, Ruiz-Garcia H, et al. Minimally invasive approaches for the management of supratentorial intraventricular tumors: a comprehensive review. Neurosurg Focus. 2020;48(1):E10.
Beez T, Munoz-Bendix C, Steiger HJ, Ahmadi SA. From Keyhole Craniotomy to Transcranial Neuroendoscopy: A Systematic Review of Less Invasive Approaches for the Removal of Tumors of the Anterior Cranial Fossa. J Clin Med. 2021;10(4):806.
Marenco-Hillembrand L, Prevatt C, Suarez-Meade P, Ruiz-Garcia H, Quinones-Hinojosa A, Chaichana KL. Minimally invasive surgical outcomes for deep-seated brain lesions treated with different tubular retraction systems: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World neurosurgery. 2020 Nov 1;143:537-45.
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.
Macdonald M, Misener RM, Weeks L, Helwig M. Covidence vs Excel for the title and abstract review stage of a systematic review. JBI Evidence Implementation. 2016 Dec 1;14(4):200-1.
Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366:l4898.
Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, Tugwell P. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses.
Chen L, Wang Y, He W, et al. A Randomized Controlled Trial of Keyhole versus Open Craniotomy for Supra-tentorial Meningioma. J Neurosurg. 2024;140(1):145-153.
Rossi M, Bianchi A, D’Alessandris QG, et al. Tubular retractor-assisted surgery for deep-seated gliomas: a comparative study with conventional open resection. J Neurooncol. 2023;161(2):329-338.
Jackson C, Patel V, Smith TR, et al. Endoscopic endonasal versus open transcranial surgery for pituitary macroadenomas: a comparative analysis of complications and outcomes. Neurosurg Focus. 2022;52(1):E8.
Varma A, Jones PS, Turner B, et al. Minimally invasive resection of convexity meningiomas: a single-center experience with matched cohort analysis. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2022;164(2):413-421.
Li Z, Li M, Wang J, et al. Surgical Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Parafascicular Surgery for Eloquent Glioma: A Retrospective, Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Analysis. Front Oncol. 2021;11:663435.
Park JS, Kim YH, Sung SK, et al. Comparative Analysis of Keyhole and Standard Craniotomy for Surgical Resection of Supratentorial Metastatic Tumors. Korean J Neurotrauma. 2020;16(2):188-195.
Alvarez I, Singh R. A Comparative Analysis of Tubular Retractor Systems vs. Conventional Craniotomy for Intra-axial Tumors: A Single-Institution Experience. Can J Neurol Sci. 2020;47(5):658-665.
Bernstein A, Müller HL, Warmuth-Metz M, et al. The endoscopic endonasal approach compared to open transcranial approach for craniopharyngioma: a single-center study. Childs Nerv Syst. 2019;35(9):1527-1533.
Sclafani JA, Kim CW. Complications associated with the initial learning curve of minimally invasive spine surgery: a systematic review. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®. 2014 Jun;472(6):1711-7.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Aamna Anwaar, Evangel Faraz Bashir, Adeel Ur Rehman, Sultan Mehmood Majoja , Farhan Ahmed , Amir Saeedullah Khan (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
