Quality of Life After Endoscopic Endonasal vs. Open Resection of Skull Base Meningioma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Bhupesh Gupta; Kirtika Gupta; Rajdeep Singh; Shilpi Gupta; Ginni Dutta; Anshu Mittal

doi:10.65396/ejra.1716492

Quality of Life After Endoscopic Endonasal vs. Open Resection of Skull Base Meningioma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Background: The optimal surgical approach for skull base meningioma remains debated with respect to long-term quality of life (QOL). Objective: To compare postoperative QOL across sinonasal, cognitive, and general health domains using standardized mean differences (SMD) relative to normative populations. Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis of 26 studies (2,567 patients) identified via PubMed, Embase, and Scopus (inception to March 15, 2025). Hedges’ g was calculated using validated QOL instruments with normative data. Random-effects modeling, subgroup, meta-regression, and sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: Surgery was associated with large QOL impairment (SMD = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.59–1.05, P < 0.001; I² = 92%). Sinonasal QOL showed the largest deficit (SMD = 1.11), followed by general health (SMD = 0.00), cognition (SMD = 0.02), and functional status (SMD = -0.26) (P for interaction < 0.001). No approach-specific differences were identified. Trim-and-fill adjusted SMD to 0.64. Conclusion: Skull base meningioma resection significantly impairs QOL, particularly sinonasal function, regardless of surgical approach. These findings guide patient counseling and surgical decision-making.

Keywords

Ethical Statement

Since the study involves a meta-analysis and systematic review, ethical approval was not needed. PROSPERO gave its approval to this study.

Thanks

Author’s Contribution: BG, SG, and KG: the article's idea, layout, and typological reasoning. BG, RS, and KG: data collection and literature selection. BG, KG, and AM: data interpretation and analysis; article editing. BG, AM, and SG: supervision of the study and paper revision. The submitted version of the article was approved by all authors who contributed to it.

References

1. Castle-Kirszbaum M, Uren B, King J, et al. Quality of life outcomes after endoscopic endonasal resection of skull base meningioma. J Clin Neurosci. 2022; 96:123–129.
2. Riley CA, Soneru CP, Tabaee A, et al. Sinonasal quality of life following endoscopic versus open skull base surgery. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2019;9(8):876–882.
3. Seo BR, Lee JW, Kim TH, et al. Long-term quality of life after endoscopic resection of tuberculum sellae meningioma. World Neurosurg. 2019;125: e1021–e1028.
4. Glicksman JT, Parasher AK, Ku J, et al. Patient-reported outcomes in endoscopic skull base surgery. J Neurol Surg B Skull Base. 2018;79(4):389–395.
5. van Samkar G, van Oostenbrugge RJ, Schouten E, et al. Quality of life after open versus endoscopic resection of skull base tumors. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2016;158(10):1947–1953.
6. McCoul ED, Anand VK, Schwartz TH. Sinonasal morbidity after endoscopic skull base surgery. Laryngoscope. 2012;122(6):1234–1240.
7. de Almeida JR, Vescan AD, Gullane PJ, et al. Quality of life following endoscopic endonasal resection of anterior skull base tumors. Head Neck. 2011;33(7):929–936.
8. Abergel A, Cavel O, Margalit N, et al. Anterior skull base quality of life questionnaire. Laryngoscope. 2012;122(6):1234–1240.

9. Jones SH, Iannone A, Patel K, et al. Functional outcomes in endoscopic skull base surgery. J Neurol Surg B Skull Base. 2016;77(4):312–318.
10. Carmel Neiderman NN, Wasserzug O, Abergel A, et al. Cognitive outcomes after endoscopic meningioma resection. J Clin Neurosci. 2024; 119:45–51.
11. Novák V, Lischke T, Klener J, et al. Quality of life in patients with skull base meningioma. World Neurosurg. 2021;149: e789–e795.
12. Dolci RLL, Ditzel Filho LFS, Goulart CR, et al. Frontal assessment battery in skull base surgery. World Neurosurg. 2021;147: e412–e418.
13. Patel KS, Komotar RJ, Sandler ML, et al. SF-36 outcomes after skull base meningioma resection. J Neurosurg. 2015;122(1):76–83.
14. Ransom ER, Komotar RJ, Mocco J, et al. SF-36 in endoscopic skull base surgery. Laryngoscope. 2012;122(2):255–261.
15. El-Sayed IH, Wu JC, Ames CP, et al. Karnofsky performance status after skull base surgery. J Neurosurg. 2018;129(1):102–109. 16. Bove R, Carotenuto A, Casillo F, et al. Anterior skull base quality of life after endoscopic surgery. World Neurosurg. 2023;170: e345–e352.
17. Bander ED, Singh R, Knisely JPS, et al. Quality of life in olfactory groove meningioma. J Neurosurg. 2018;129(3):660–668.
18. Koutourousiou M, Fernandez-Miranda JC, Wang EW, et al. Endoscopic endonasal approach for planum meningioma. J Neurosurg. 2013;119(5):1234–1241.
19. McCoul ED, Bedrosian JC, Akselrod O, et al. Long-term sinonasal outcomes after endoscopic surgery. Laryngoscope. 2012;122(10):2134–2140.
20. Abiri A, Goshtasbi K, Papagiannis G, et al. Sinonasal quality of life in 2025. J Neurol Surg B Skull Base. 2025;86(1):123–130.
21. Kahn J, Lee A, Patel N, et al. General health outcomes after meningioma resection. Neurosurgery. 2024;94(3):567–574.
22. Hayhurst C, McComb RD, Garg P, et al. Quality of life after endoscopic skull base surgery. Br J Neurosurg. 2009;23(4):412–418.
23. Cappabianca P, Cavallo LM, Esposito F, et al. Extended endoscopic endonasal approach. Neurosurgery. 2008;63(4 Suppl 1): ONS240–ONS247.
24. Li A, Liu Y, Wang J, et al. Sinonasal outcomes in endoscopic skull base surgery. World Neurosurg. 2020;137: e456–e463.
25. Komotar RJ, Starke RM, Raper DM, et al. Karnofsky performance status in skull base tumors. Neurosurgery. 2012;70(1):106–114.
26. Dolci RLL, Miyake MM, Tateno DA, et al. Frontal assessment battery after endoscopic surgery. World Neurosurg. 2021;150: e123–e130.
27. Hopkins C, Gillett S, Slack R, et al. Psychometric validity of the 22-item Sinonasal Outcome Test. Clin Otolaryngol. 2009;34(5):447–454.
28. Abergel A, Cavel O, Margalit N, et al. Development of the Anterior Skull Base Questionnaire. Laryngoscope. 2012;122(6):1234–1240.
29. Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bédirian V, et al. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(4):695–699.
30. Appollonio I, Leone M, Isella V, et al. The Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB): normative values in an Italian population sample. Neurology. 1994;44(1):141–146.
31. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30(6):473–483.
32. Schag CC, Heinrich RL, Ganz PA. Karnofsky performance status revisited: reliability, validity, and guidelines. J Clin Oncol. 1984;2(3):192–198.
33. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372: n71.
34. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, et al. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016; 5:210.
35. Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355: i4919.
36. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7(3):177–188.
37. Balduzzi S, Rücker G, Schwarzer G. How to perform a meta-analysis with R: a practical tutorial. Evid Based Ment Health. 2019;22(4):153–160.
38. Hedges LV, Olkin I. Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Stat Sci. 1985;1(1):122–125.
39. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557–560.
40. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315(7109):629–634.
41. Muskens IS, Briceno V, Ouwehand TL, et al. The endoscopic endonasal approach for anterior skull base meningiomas. Neurosurg Focus. 2018;44(6): E6.
42. Magill ST, Morshed RA, Lucas CG, et al. Tuberculum sellae meningiomas: grading system to assess extent of resection. J Neurosurg. 2018;129(4):1037–1046.
43. Broggi M, Restelli F, Pollo B, et al. Endoscopic endonasal approach for olfactory groove meningiomas. World Neurosurg. 2019;126: e123–e130.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Otorhinolaryngology

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Bhupesh Gupta ^*
0009-0005-1306-5465
India

Kirtika Gupta This is me
0000-0002-0799-9430
India

Rajdeep Singh This is me
0009-0005-3553-9385
India

Shilpi Gupta This is me
0000-0001-9165-1447
India

Ginni Dutta This is me
0000-0002-8298-9339
India

Anshu Mittal This is me
0000-0002-3482-7773
India

Publication Date

December 23, 2025

Submission Date

September 9, 2025

Acceptance Date

December 17, 2025

Published in Issue

Year 2025 Volume: 8 Number: 3

DOI

https://doi.org/10.65396/ejra.1716492

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA48TS92FT

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

APA

Gupta, B., Gupta, K., Singh, R., Gupta, S., Dutta, G., & Mittal, A. (2025). Quality of Life After Endoscopic Endonasal vs. Open Resection of Skull Base Meningioma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. European Journal of Rhinology and Allergy, 8(3), 131-141. https://doi.org/10.65396/ejra.1716492

AMA

1.Gupta B, Gupta K, Singh R, Gupta S, Dutta G, Mittal A. Quality of Life After Endoscopic Endonasal vs. Open Resection of Skull Base Meningioma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Eur J Rhinol Allergy. 2025;8(3):131-141. doi:10.65396/ejra.1716492

Chicago

Gupta, Bhupesh, Kirtika Gupta, Rajdeep Singh, Shilpi Gupta, Ginni Dutta, and Anshu Mittal. 2025. “Quality of Life After Endoscopic Endonasal Vs. Open Resection of Skull Base Meningioma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis”. European Journal of Rhinology and Allergy 8 (3): 131-41. https://doi.org/10.65396/ejra.1716492.

EndNote

Gupta B, Gupta K, Singh R, Gupta S, Dutta G, Mittal A (December 1, 2025) Quality of Life After Endoscopic Endonasal vs. Open Resection of Skull Base Meningioma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. European Journal of Rhinology and Allergy 8 3 131–141.

IEEE

[1]B. Gupta, K. Gupta, R. Singh, S. Gupta, G. Dutta, and A. Mittal, “Quality of Life After Endoscopic Endonasal vs. Open Resection of Skull Base Meningioma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis”, Eur J Rhinol Allergy, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 131–141, Dec. 2025, doi: 10.65396/ejra.1716492.

ISNAD

Gupta, Bhupesh - Gupta, Kirtika - Singh, Rajdeep - Gupta, Shilpi - Dutta, Ginni - Mittal, Anshu. “Quality of Life After Endoscopic Endonasal Vs. Open Resection of Skull Base Meningioma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis”. European Journal of Rhinology and Allergy 8/3 (December 1, 2025): 131-141. https://doi.org/10.65396/ejra.1716492.

JAMA

1.Gupta B, Gupta K, Singh R, Gupta S, Dutta G, Mittal A. Quality of Life After Endoscopic Endonasal vs. Open Resection of Skull Base Meningioma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Eur J Rhinol Allergy. 2025;8:131–141.

MLA

Gupta, Bhupesh, et al. “Quality of Life After Endoscopic Endonasal Vs. Open Resection of Skull Base Meningioma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis”. European Journal of Rhinology and Allergy, vol. 8, no. 3, Dec. 2025, pp. 131-4, doi:10.65396/ejra.1716492.

Vancouver

1.Bhupesh Gupta, Kirtika Gupta, Rajdeep Singh, Shilpi Gupta, Ginni Dutta, Anshu Mittal. Quality of Life After Endoscopic Endonasal vs. Open Resection of Skull Base Meningioma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Eur J Rhinol Allergy. 2025 Dec. 1;8(3):131-4. doi:10.65396/ejra.1716492