Skip to main content
Springer logoLink to Springer
. 2026 Mar 25;168(1):91. doi: 10.1007/s00701-026-06830-6

Giant pituitary adenomas: an institutional experience with 289 surgically treated patients

Victoria Antonia Binder 1,✉, Yining Zhao 1, Julia Sandra Breu 1, Moritz Repschläger 1, Rudolf Fahlbusch 1, Michael Buchfelder 1
PMCID: PMC13035698  PMID: 41882423

Abstract

Background

Giant pituitary adenomas (GPA) are considered difficult to treat and the operative procedures are associated with more complications. This study aimed to assess treatment strategies of GPAs in a large consecutive and uniformly documented series in a single specialized center.

Methods

A total of 289 patients with GPA who underwent primary surgery in our department between December 1982 and December 2022 were analyzed in this retrospective study. GPAs were defined by a maximum diameter of ≥ 4 cm in at least one plane. Patients were reviewed for endocrine, radiological and ophthalmological outcomes as well as complication and mortality rates.

Results

The mean maximum tumor diameter was 4.6 ± 0.7 cm. 201 patients (69.6%) underwent transsphenoidal and 36 patients (12.4%) underwent transcranial surgery only. 52 patients (18.0%) underwent a combined approach within a few weeks. Gross-total resection (GTR) was achieved in one-fifth (n = 52) of the patients. It was dependent, among other factors, on patients’ tumor size and tumor extension. Severe complications such as tumor apoplexy, meningitis or cerebrospinal fluid leaks occurred in 5.9%, 3.5% and 2.8% of patients, respectively. Seven deaths (2.4%) occurred in the early postoperative period. The median follow-up time was 76 months, at which point 70.2% of patients showed a stable condition without requiring further treatment.

Conclusion

Generally, the treatment of giant pituitary adenomas remains a significant challenge. Although the transsphenoidal approach achieved good results, tumor size and configuration often required a transcranial approach or a combination of different approaches. It is important to consider individual patient and tumor characteristics when selecting the most appropriate surgical approach.

Keywords: Giant pituitary adenomas, Transsphenoidal pituitary surgery, Transcranial pituitary surgery, Surgical outcome, Hypopituitarism

Introduction

Large and invasive pituitary adenomas are considered particular challenges for the neurosurgeon. When Symon et al. [65, 66] compared their outcomes after craniotomy for adenomas with suprasellar extension, they found a clear difference between the moderately sized and very large ones in terms of complications and outcomes and consequently coined the term “giant adenomas” for those, which measured more than 40 mm at least in one plane. Thereafter, the evolution of computerized tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging allowed the precise depiction of a pituitary tumor at presentation and quantification of the extent of resection. It became the general experience that size is a major determinant of remission in patients with acromegaly, prolactinomas and Cushing’s disease [7, 19, 53]. A variety of publications reported on the institutional outcomes of surgical treatment of giant pituitary adenomas or PitNETs, respectively, according to the most recent update of the WHO classification of pituitary tumors [10]. Some applied microsurgical [24, 25, 36, 50, 51, 63, 75], other pre-dominantly endoscopic techniques [11, 15, 17, 26, 41, 44, 45, 68, 70]. The presence or absence of invasion into the cavernous or sphenoid sinus, clivus and arachnoid are other factors, apart from mere size, which determine the amount of resectablity together with the configuration of a tumor [46], its consistency and the condition of the patient. The cooperation with endocrinologists, radiation oncologists and pathologists in an expert center allows to utilize personalized multimodal treatments [32]. We considered it worthwhile to report our extensive institutional experience with giant pituitary adenomas treated in a dedicated center. They were treated with standardized surgical protocols by two surgeons (MB and RF), in which the size, configuration and extent defined whether a transsphenoidal or transcranial approach was utilized and, if both were applied within a few weeks, which sequence was used. Preoperative medical treatment was mainly performed in prolactinomas and in a few patients with acromegaly at the discretion of the referring physician. In contrast to many other reports, this is a consecutive series of 289 primary managements of giant pituitary adenomas out of a total of 6172 patients operated in this single center within a 40-year period between 1982 and 2022.

Material and methods

This study included 289 consecutive patients who underwent primary surgery for giant pituitary adenoma at the Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital of Erlangen between December 1982 and December 2022. Inclusion criteria were a maximum tumor diameter ≥ 4 cm on preoperative imaging. The patients' data regarding pre- and postoperative clinical features, as well as endocrine, radiological, and ophthalmological outcomes, complication rates, and mortality rates, were analyzed retrospectively.

Endocrinological assessment was performed using commercially available test kits. Basal levels of prolactin (PRL), growth hormone (GH), luteotropin (LH), follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), testosterone in men and estradiol in women, cortisol, thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH), free triiodothyronine (fT3) and free thyroxine (fT4) were assayed for each patient. Reliable measurements of IGF-1 have only been possible since 2013.

Radiological imaging was performed preoperatively and about 3 months after the operation. CT preceded 35 operations (10.2%) and MRI 297 operations (86.3%), while both modalities were used before another 12 procedures (3.5%). A distinction was made between gross-total resection (no radiological evidence of tumor remnants) and incomplete resection. Intraoperative imaging was introduced in our department in 1996 [20]. Since then, it has been used in 75 operations (22.0%), 71 of which were transsphenoidal only.

The pre- and postoperative ophthalmological examination included visual acuity and visual field defects. The assessment was made using a modified score according to the guidelines of the German Ophthalmological Society (GOS) [33].

Patients underwent either transsphenoidal or transcranial surgery alone or a two-staged strategy. The surgical procedures of the transsphenoidal and transcranial approach used in our department have been published before [5–7]. The two-staged strategy usually involved a combination of transsphenoidal and transcranial surgery, with the second surgery performed within six months of the first.

Complications occurring within 30 days of surgery were considered. They included death, tumor apoplexy, meningitis, CSF-leaks, cranial nerve (CN) palsies, loss of vision, postoperative hypopituitarism, transient and permanent diabetes insipidus (DI) and hyponatremia.

Patient data were analyzed using Microsoft Excel (version 16.77) and IBM SPSS Statistics (version 29.0.1.0). The following statistical tests were used: Mann–Whitney-U test, chi-square test and Fisher’s exact test. A p < 0.05 was considered significant and all p-values were two-sided.

Results

Patient and tumor characteristics

Out of a total of 289 patients, 174 were male patients (60.2%) and 115 were female patients (39.8%). Age ranged from 11 to 85 years, with a mean age of 51.8 years (± 16.4 years). Most patients (83%, n = 240) complained of visual deterioration. Diplopia was reported to have been experienced by 25 patients (8.7%), 17 of whom patients had manifest CN III, IV or VI palsies. Table 5 gives an overview of CN palsies preoperatively. Severe headache was noted in 62 patients (21.5%) and 38 patients had signs of acromegaly (13.1%), such as an enlargement of the hands, feet or face. Preoperative hypopituitarism of one or more axes was present in 194 patients (67.1%). A diminished libido was reported in 67 patients (23.1%), and amenorrhea was noted in 28 of the female patients (24.3%). Qualitative or quantitative disturbances of consciousness were present in 17 patients (5.9%), a further 12 patients (4.2%) were found to have gait disorders. Figure 1 displays the most common preoperative symptoms.

Table 5.

CN I, II, III, IV and VI palsies pre- and postoperatively

CN I palsy CN II palsy CN III palsy CN IV palsy CN VI palsy
Preoperatively (n = 289)a 7 (2.4%) 240 (83.0%) 14 (4.8%) 1 (0.3%) 3 (1.0%)
Postoperatively (n = 289) 1 (0.3%) 47/239 (19.7%)b 15 (5.2%) 2 (0.7%) 7 (2.4%)c
TS (n = 201) 1 (0.5%) 27/170 (15.9%) 4 (2.0%) 0 4 (2.0%)
TC (n = 36)d 0 8/24 (33.3%) 8 (22.2%) 0 1 (2.8%)
TS + TC (n = 34) 0 8/31 (25.8%) 2 (5.9%) 2 (5.9%) 0
TC + TS (n = 10) 0 2/7 (28.6%) 1 (10.0%) 0 1 (10.0%)

aRegarding CN III, IV and VI palsies, one patient had both a CN III and CN IV palsy preoperatively

bTwo patients in the TS + TS cohort, 1 patient in the TC + TC cohort and 3 patients in the three-staged procedure cohort complained of visual impairment (CN II palsy)

cOne additional patient in the TC + TC cohort developed a CN VI palsy

dRegarding CN III, IV and VI palsies, one patient in the TC cohort developed both a CN III and a CN VI palsy

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Preoperative symptoms of the 289 patients with GPA

The mean tumor diameter was 4.6 cm (± 0.7 cm; range 4–9 cm) with a mean tumor volume of 33.5 cm3 (± 23.2 cm3; range 4 cm3–180 cm3). There were 194 patients (67.1%) with non-functioning adenomas, 44 patients (15.2%) with prolactinomas, 43 patients (14.9%) with acromegaly, 3 patients (1.0%) with Cushing's disease, 3 patients (1.0%) with gonadotropin-secreting adenomas and 2 patients (0.7%) with thyrotropin-secreting adenomas.

A suprasellar extension of the tumor was present in 236 patients (81.7%) and almost as many tumors (228 patients, 78.9%) had a parasellar extension. Sphenoidal sinus extension, retrosellar extension, temporal extension and subfrontal extension were found in 152 patients (52.6%), 74 patients (25.6%), 49 patients (17.0%) and 18 patients (6.2%), respectively. Hydrocephalus due to obstruction of the foramen of Monroi was present in 32 patients (11.1%). Based on the surgeon's impression, radiological signs of invasive growth, and/or histologically detected adenoma cells in sphenoid sinus or bone biopsies, a total of 253 adenomas (87.5%) showed invasive growth. Table 1 shows the baseline tumor characteristics.

Table 1.

Baseline tumor characteristics of the 289 patients with GPA

Tumor characteristics no. %
Maximum tumor diameter (cm) 4.6 ± 0.7 (range 4–9)
Maximum tumor volume (cm3) 33.5 ± 23.2 (range 4–179.6)
Functional classification
- Non-functioning adenoma 194 67.1
- Prolactinoma 44 15.2
- GH-secreting adenoma 43 14.9
- ACTH-secreting adenoma 3 1.0
- Gonadotropin-secreting adenoma 3 1.0
- TSH-secreting adenoma 2 0.7
Suprasellar extension with optic nerve compression 236 81.7
Parasellar extension 228 78.9
Sphenoidal sinus extension 152 52.6
Retrosellar extension 74 25.6
Temporal extension 49 17.0
Subfrontal extension 18 6.2
Hydrocephalus 32 11.1
Invasiveness 253 87.5

Surgical management and outcome

A total of 344 operations were performed on the 289 patients, including a variety of two- and three-staged procedures. For most patients (n = 201, 69.6%) a single microscopic transsphenoidal approach was our first choice, often endoscopy-assisted. Single transcranial surgery was performed in 36 patients (12.5%). A total of 49 patients (16.9%) underwent a two-staged procedure, while 3 patients (1.0%) underwent up to 3 operations within 6 months. In our two-staged treatment strategy, adenomas were usually first removed via a transsphenoidal approach, followed by a transcranial surgery (34 patients, 11.8%). Intraoperative MR-imaging was used in 75 operations (out of 341 operations, 22.0%), 71 of which were transsphenoidal. Thirteen patients (4.5%) received a shunt prior to undergoing surgery. Table 2 provides an overview of the surgical approaches.

Table 2.

Surgical approaches in the patients treated for GPA

Surgical Approach no. %
Only TS 201 69.6
Only TC 36 12.5
TS + TC 34 11.8
TC + TS 10 3.4
TS + TS 3 1.0
TC + TC 2 0.7
Three operations 3 1.0
Preoperative Shunt 13 4.5
Intraoperative MRI (n = 341) 75 22.0

GTR was achieved in 52 patients (20.5%). Subtotal and partial resection was noted in 159 patients (62.6%) and 43 patients (16.9%), respectively. Table 3 shows the association between the extent of resection and patient and tumor characteristics. There was no significant correlation with age, sex, the endocrinological tumor type or parasellar and sphenoid sinus extension. Incomplete tumor resection was associated with a larger tumor diameter and volume compared to GTR, which had significantly smaller tumors in diameter and volume (4.7 cm vs. 4.4 cm, p = 0.005 and 34.9 cm3 vs. 28.1 cm3, p = 0.032).

Table 3.

Comparison of patient and tumor characteristics in relation to GTR or incomplete tumor resection

GTR
n = 52
Incomplete resection
n = 202
p-value
Patient characteristics
Age (yr) 53.2 ± 14.7 50.0 ± 16.3 ns
Men, no. 35 (67.3%) 119 (58.9%) ns
Tumor characteristics
Non-functioning adenomas, no. 39 (75.0%) 127 (62.9%) ns
Maximum tumor diameter (cm) 4.4 ± 0.4 4.7 ± 0.8 0.005
Maximum tumor volume (cm3) 28.1 ± 15.5 34.9 ± 25.1 0.032
Parasellar extension, no. 38 (73.1%) 167 (82.7%) ns
Retrosellar extension, no. 6 (11.5%) 61 (30.2%) 0.006
Sphenoid sinus extension, no. 30 (57.7%) 106 (52.5%) ns

An extension to retrosellar areas was also connected to a higher likelihood of incomplete resection (p = 0.006). GTR was possible in 6 out of 67 patients (9.0%) with preoperative retrosellar extension, compared to 46 out of 187 patients (24.6%) without retrosellar extension. Although parasellar extension showed no significant influence on incomplete tumor resection there was a trend towards it. While GTR was achieved in only 38 out of 205 patients (18.5%) with preoperative parasellar extension, it was achieved in 14 out of 49 patients (28.6%) without preoperative parasellar extension. A total of 116 patients (40.1%) obtained postoperative radiotherapy.

A reoperation was required for 38 patients: In 13 patients due to progression of a residual tumor, in 13 patients due to a symptomatic residual tumor, and in 12 patients for recurrence. For the purposes of this study, only tumors that were deemed to be completely removed by imaging after primary treatment were considered recurrent. This corresponded to a recurrence rate of 12 out of 52 (23.1%) completely resected adenomas. The median follow-up time was 76 months, at which point 70.2% of patients showed a stable condition without requiring further treatment.

Figure 2 shows examples of complete and incomplete tumor resection, as demonstrated by the preoperative and postoperative MRIs.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

T1-weighted MRI in coronal (A, C, E, G) and sagittal (B, D, F, H) planes of a 39-year-old patient before (A, B) and after (C, D) a single transsphenoidal operation with GTR and a 48-year-old patient before (E, F) and after (G, H) a combined approach (TS + TK) with incomplete tumor resection. Both patients suffered from non-functioning pituitary adenomas and presented with visual compromise, which recovered completely after surgery

Endocrinological outcome

Prolactinoma

All patients suspected of having a prolactinoma were treated with dopamine antagonists. As a result, 67 patients (23.2%) received treatment, including those with prolactinoma (44 patients, 15.2%) and those with non-tumorous hyperprolactinemia (23 patients, 8.0%). Prolactin levels could be significantly reduced in patients with prolactinomas (p = 0.003). However, endocrinological remission was present in only 21.1% (n = 38) of these patients about three months after surgery.

Acromegaly

Of 43 patients with acromegaly, 34 (79.1%) were treated with somatostatin analogues. No patient showed suppression of hGH to below 1 ng/ml during the oGTT prior to surgery. About three months after the surgical treatment hGH could be suppressed in 6 patients (24.0%, n = 32). Since IGF-1 levels could be reliably assessed, 7 patients with acromegaly were managed surgically, of whom 1 patient (14.3%) achieved postoperative endocrine remission.

Cushing’s disease

In all three patients with Cushing's disease, the dexamethasone suppression test could not achieve suppression to below 2 µg/dl, neither pre- nor postoperatively. The same applied to ACTH levels which did not show a significant decrease. In addition, one of the tumors was later found to convert to pituitary carcinoma.

Visual outcome

Pre- and postoperative data about ophthalmological outcome were available for 239 patients. Improved vision was observed in 141 patients (59.0%). The vision of 47 patients (19.7%) deteriorated, while it remained unchanged in 51 patients (21.3%). According to the GOS guidelines, a mean preoperative visual impairment score of 35.2 (± 29.3) was determined. The mean postoperative score was 28.4 (± 30.3), which was significantly lower than the preoperative score (p < 0.001). Out of 25 patients reporting diplopia preoperatively, 16 patients (64.0%) described an improvement after surgical treatment.

Complications

Among the 4 most frequent surgical approaches, the trans-cranial approach had the highest complication rate (n = 25, 69.4%). The lowest complication rate occurred in the transsphenoidal-transcranial cohort (n = 2 out of 6 surgeries, 33.3%; p = 0.002). Figure 3 illustrates the most frequent complications, while Table 4 shows an overview of the complications in relation to the surgical approach. We restricted the analysis to univariable comparisons, given the low numbers of events for each complication and the presence of small subgroup sizes.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

The most frequent complications following surgical treatment for GPA

Table 4.

Complications of surgical treatment in relation to the sequence of operative approaches

Surgical Approach Total
n = 289
TS
n = 201
TC
n = 36
TS + TC
n = 34
TC + TS
n = 10
p-value
Mortality 7 (2.4%) 2 (1.0%) 3 (8.3%) 1 (2.9%) 1 (10.0%) 0.016
Postoperative hemorrhage 17 (5.9%) 12 (6.0%) 4 (11.1%) 1 (2.9%) 0 ns
Meningitis 10 (3.5%) 8 (4.0%) 0 1 (2.9%) 1 (10.0%) ns
CSF-leaka 8 (2.8%) 3 (1.5%) 1 (2.8%) 3 (8,8%) 0 ns
Amaurosis 9 (3.1%) 3 (1.5%) 4 (11.1%) 1 (2.9%) 1 (10.0%) 0.014
CN III, IV or VI palsyb 23 (8.0%) 8 (4.0%) 8 (22.2%) 4 (11.8%) 2 (20.0%)  < 0.001
Hyponatremia 33 (11.4%) 29 (14.4%) 2 (5.6%) 2 (5.9%) 0 ns
Hypopituitarismc 33/95 (34.7%) 15/58 (25.9%) 8/15 (53.3%) 7/15 (46.7%) 2/5 (40.0%) ns
Transient DI 14/281 (5.0%) 10/199 (5.0%) 3/33 (9.1%) 0/33 1/8 (12.5%) ns
Permanent DI 13/281 (4.6%) 9/199 (4.5%) 2/33 (6.1%) 2/33 (6.1%) 0/8 ns

aOne additional patient who underwent a three staged procedure

bOne additional patient who underwent a TC + TC procedure

cOne additional patient out of 2 patients who underwent a three staged procedure

Surgical mortality was 2.4% (7 patients). Three deaths occurred within 30 days and 4 deaths within 60 days after surgery. These patients were treated as follows: Two patients underwent transsphenoidal surgery, 3 patients underwent transcranial surgery only and 2 patients underwent a combined approach (p = 0.016). Four out of those 7 patients died from postoperative tumor apoplexy with hemorrhagic hydrocephalus. Implantation of an external ventricular drainage could not prevent death in these patients. One patient deceased from intracerebral hemorrhage, herpes simplex virus type 1 encephalitis and multiple pulmonary embolisms. Another patient developed generalized convulsive status epilepticus secondary to a chronic subdural hematoma and eventually died from metabolic disorders. Sudden cardiorespiratory arrest resulted in death of one patient, the exact etiology remaining unclear.

Postoperative hemorrhage occurred in 17 patients (5.9%). Of these patients, 12 had previously undergone transsphenoidal surgery, 4 had undergone transcranial surgery and 1 had initially undergone transsphenoidal surgery, followed by transcranial surgery (hemorrhage after the first operation) (p = 0.492). Five patients underwent surgical evacuation of the hematoma, 7 required external ventricular drainage, and 4 underwent ventriculo-peritoneal shunt implantation.

Ten patients (3.5%) developed postoperative meningitis. Of these, 8 developed it after isolated transsphenoidal surgery, while 2 patients underwent two-staged surgery (1 patient transsphenoidal-transcranial and 1 patient transcranial-transsphenoidal), with meningitis developing after the second operation (p = 0.379).

CSF-leaks resulting from the operation occurred in 8 patients (2.8%). Of the patients undergoing transsphenoidal surgery, 3 developed CSF-leaks, as did 1 of those undergoing transcranial surgery and 3 of those undergoing combined transsphenoidal-transcranial surgery (p = 0.086). One patient undergoing a three-staged surgical procedure also developed a CSF leak. In the combined procedures, CSF leaks were observed after 2 transsphenoidal and 2 transcranial operations. A total of 9 patients (3.1%) experienced either unilateral or bilateral loss of vision following surgery. Of these, 2 of those who underwent transsphenoidal surgery, 3 of those who underwent transcranial surgery, and 1 each of those who underwent transsphenoidal-transcranial surgery and transcranial-transsphenoidal surgery experienced unilateral amaurosis. Bilateral amaurosis affected 1 transsphenoidally operated and 1 transcranially operated patient (p = 0.014).

Manifest cranial nerve III, IV or VI palsy occurred in 23 patients (8.0%). In the transsphenoidal and transcranial cohort, 8 patients were affected, while in the transsphenoidal-transcranial and transcranial-transsphenoidal cohorts, 4 and 2 patients were identified, respectively (p < 0.001). Another patient in the transcranial-transcranial cohort developed an abducens nerve palsy. Table 5 gives an overview of the new nerve palsies of the CN I, II, III, IV and VI postoperatively. No CN V palsy occurred.

The main endocrine complications were postoperative hypopituitarism and hyponatremia. Following surgery, 33 out of 95 patients (34.7%) who were not affected by anterior hypopituitarism prior to surgery developed insufficiency in at least one hormonal axis. The lowest rate was observed in the transsphenoidal cohort (25.9%), but no significant difference was found between the surgical approaches.

Hyponatremia occurred in 33 patients (11.4%). Twenty-nine patients underwent transsphenoidal surgery, 2 underwent transcranial surgery and 2 underwent transsphenoidal-transcranial surgery (p = 0.236). It could be controlled in all patients by restricting their fluid intake or by administering tolvaptan (vasopressin antagonist).

Transient and permanent DI developed in 14 (5.0%) and 13 (4.6%) patients, respectively. Patients who developed permanent diabetes insipidus (DI) were treated as follows: Nine patients underwent transsphenoidal surgery, 2 underwent transcranial surgery, and 2 underwent a transsphenoidal-transcranial procedure (p = 0.797). Data were available for 281 patients; one additional patient had already been diagnosed with DI prior to surgery.

Discussion

Due to their irregular growth and invasiveness, GPAs require individualized treatment strategies. Whilst the majority of pituitary adenomas can be removed using a transsphenoidal approach, which is associated with low morbidity and mortality rates [7], this approach is not generally considered suitable for all giant adenomas. Especially the tumor localization, extent and configuration determine the surgical approach. According to Micko et al. [46], a greater “neck-to-dome area” ratio leads to a lower likelihood of suprasellar tumor descent. Consequently, this increases the risk of hemorrhagic transformation within residual tumor. We emphasize the importance of interdisciplinary management in these tumors [37, 49, 62]. Almost all giant prolactinomas were initially treated with dopamine agonists, and those which responded with an impressive decrease in prolactin levels and tumor shrinkage were continued on medical treatment [1, 9, 49, 62, 69]. In this report, however, we focus on patients of all endocrinological types in whom we saw an indication for surgery.

At our department 70% of patients with GPA underwent a single transsphenoidal approach. This approach was particularly suitable for adenomas with wide communication between intra- and extrasellar parts of the tumor. When a single transsphenoidal approach was not sufficient, a second surgery, usually transcranial surgery, was added. The transcranial approach was mainly used for tumor growth in subfrontal, temporal or retrosellar areas, as well as adenomas with narrow communication between intra- and extrasellar tumor parts [6, 7]. Therefore, it was either a good supplementary approach or primary single surgery (with each approach accounting for 12% of patients).

Other combinations of transsphenoidal and transcranial approaches were performed in 6% of patients. Performing a transsphenoidal approach first offers the chance of achieving sufficient adenoma resection in a single surgery from below, even in irregularly growing tumors. Based on the surgeons’ intraoperative impression and postoperative imaging, the decision to schedule another surgery can be made, allowing time for the patient to recover. This method of scheduling surgeries at different times differs from the approach of other surgeons, who performed transsphenoidal and transcranial procedures simultaneously [2, 43, 58].

GTR was achieved in 20.5% of patients. It is important to consider that operational methods and tools have changed and improved over the 40-year period of observation. Influencing factors on incomplete tumor resection were identified in this series to be tumor size and tumor extension to retrosellar areas. The maximum tumor diameter and the associated tumor volume was significantly lower in tumors with GTR. The same significant influence on GTR was present in retrosellar grown tumors. Whereas literature has been shown that parasellar tumor extension limits GTR [39, 41, 47, 50], this series only suggests this association.

While most GPAs are non-functioning, it is important to distinguish between hormonal active and inactive tumors for treatment purposes [59, 64]. This is particularly relevant for prolactinomas, for which medical therapy with dopamine agonists is the primary treatment [8, 49, 69]. In this series the endocrinological remission rates were 21.1% and 24.0% for patients with prolactinoma and acromegaly, respectively.

It is important to mention that all prolactinomas which were treated surgically, either had an insufficient response to medical therapy and/or severe symptoms resulting from tumor compression. None of the patients with Cushing's disease achieved endocrinological remission. It has been shown in literature that hormonal remission in hormonal active adenomas can be achieved more frequently in smaller tumors than in larger tumors, when comparing surgically treated adenomas [53, 60]. It is particularly challenging to obtain endocrinological remission in giant adenomas. It emphasizes the reasonable distinction between micro-, macro- and giant adenomas [28, 31, 34, 66].

The perioperative mortality was 2.4%, which is comparable to other large series [11, 16, 25, 35, 50, 51, 56, 72, 74]. Table 6 shows an overview of representative literature on surgically treated GPAs [3, 4, 11–14, 17, 18, 21, 23–27, 29, 30, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42, 44, 45, 50–52, 54–57, 63, 66, 68, 70–76]. The most common cause was postoperative tumor apoplexy, with no significant difference observed between the surgical modalities. Of the 17 patients with postoperative hemorrhage, 4 patients died, indicating that survival probability decreases when this complication occurs. The greatest risk of postoperative hemorrhage arises from tumor remnants. In other large series postoperative hemorrhage was also a major cause of death [26, 44, 50, 61]. A statistically significant difference in mortality rates was observed between the surgical modalities, with the transsphenoidal operations resulting in the lowest mortality rate. In the relevant literature, this procedure has been found to be less complication-affected and is therefore preferred [40, 61]. In a recent meta-analysis Tang et al. [67] have compared surgical options. They also found that the transsphenoidal approach in all its fashions was associated with higher rates of GTR and lower mortality and complication rates. However, as they admit themselves, a compilation of literature data suffers from the heterogeneity of data acquisition and management protocols. Notwithstanding the higher complication and mortality rates associated with the transcranial approach, it should not be disregarded. On average, the tumors treated with this modality were larger and anatomically more challenging or inaccessible for transsphenoidal surgery.

Table 6.

Overview of representative literature on surgically treated GPAs

Reference Period Patients (no.) Surgical Approach GTR
(%)
Mortality 
(%)
RT
(%)
Recurrence
(%)
Symon et al. 1979 [66] 1968–1978 16 transcranial na 18.7 na na
Pia et al. 1985 [55] 1953–1983 77 microsurgical transsphenoidal, transcranial na 14.3 29 29
Goel et al. 1996 [24] 1989–1994 30 microsurgical transsphenoidal, transcranial 0 20 73 na
Goel et al. 2004 [25] 1995–2002 118 microsurgical transsphenoidal, transcranial 29.7 2.5 27.9 na
Barzaghi et al. 2007 [3] 1990–2004 54 microsurgical transsphenoidal na 3.7 na na
Mortini et al. 2007 [50] 1990–2004 95 microsurgical transsphenoidal, transcranial 14.7 3.2 33.6 15.7
Xue-Fei et al. 2008 [70] 2000–2006 54 endoscopic endonasal, transcranial, combined two-staged 33.3 5.6 55.6 5.6
Baumann et al. 2009 [4] 2004–2005 6 microsurgical transsphenoidal 66.7 0 16.7 0
De Paiva Neto et al. 2010 [17] 1998–2008 51 endoscopic endonasal 41 0 23.5 0
Sinha and Sharma 2010 [63] 1996–2009 250 microsurgical transsphenoidal, transcranial 31 4.4 76.6 na
Zhao et al. 2010 [75] 1999–2008 44 microsurgical transsphenoidal 61.4 0 na na
Müslümann et al. 2011 [51] 1994–2008 41 microsurgical transsphenoidal, transcranial 39 2.4 na na
Guo et al. 2012 [29] 2006–2011 15 transcranial 67 0 33.3 0
Koutourousiou et al. 2013 [41] 2002–2011 54 endoscopic endonasal 20.4 0 25.9 0
Gondim et al. 2014 [26] 1998–2011 50 endoscopic endonasal 38 4 6 na
Wang et al. 2014 [68] 2006–2013 115 endoscopic endonasal 76 0 na na
Chabot et al. 2015 [12] 2009–2014 6 endoscopic endonasal 50.0 0 na 0
Zhang et al. 2015 [74] na 112 transcranial, two-staged with transsphenoidal surgery 50.9 2.7 na 7.1
Fu et al. 2016 [23] 2007–2011 21 transcranial na 0 100 38.1
Kuo et al. 2016 [42] 2002–2009 38 endoscopic endonasal 21.1 0 52.6 2.6
Yildirim et al. 2016 [73] 2009–2014 20 endocopic endonasal 70 na na 28.6
Han et al. 2017 [30] 2009–2015 62 transsphenoidal, transcranial and combined (simultaneous and two-staged) 35.5 0 40.3 12.9
Karki et al. 2017 [36] 2010–2015 59 microsurgical transsphenoidal 74.6 0 na 3.4
Nishioka et al. 2017 [52] 2008–2015 128 microsurgical transsphenoidal, endoscopic endonasal, simultaneous combined transsphenoidal and transcranial 29.7 0.8 33.6 16.4
Yano et al. 2017 [72] 2002–2015 34 endoscopic endonasal 47.1a 2.9 17.6 0
Elshazly et al. 2018 [18] 2008–2016 55 endoscopic endonasal 44 0 25.5 11
Fallah et al. 2019 [21] 2013–2017 35 endoscopic endonasal, transcranial 74.3 na na na
Yang et al. 2019 [71] 2012–2015 60 endoscopic endonasal 46.7 na na na
Graillon et al. 2020 [27] 2000–2016 19 transcranial, combined two-staged 21 0 36.8 0
Peto et al. 2020 [54] 2015–2018 10 endoscopic endonasal 40 0 na na
Zheng et al. 2020 [76] 2013–2017 8 endoscopic endonasal 25 na na na
Ceylan et al. 2021 [11] 1997–2019 205 endoscopic endonasal 35.1 1.46 6.3 5.85
Chibbaro et al. 2021 [14] 2015–2019 96 endoscopic endonasal 35.4 0 13.5 16.7
Rahimli et al. 2021 [57] 2014–2020 44 endoscopic endonasal 63.6b 4.5 22.7 0
Chen et al. 2022 [13] 2015–2021 239 endoscopic endonasal, microsurgical transsphenoidal 19.25 0.84 na na
Makarenko et al. 2022 [44] 2002–2020 108 endoscopic endonasal, transcranial, combined two-staged 38.9 0.9 24.1 20.0
Micko et al. 2022 [45] 2004–2019 64 endoscopic endonasal, possibly combined with transcranial surgery 28 0 25 na
Ke et al. 2023 [38] 2014–2022 94 endoscopic endonasal, transcranial or combined 63.8 0 18.1 0
Joshi et al. 2024 [35] 2010 −2023 46 endoscopic endonasal, transcranial, combined two-staged 50.0 2.2 na na
Qiao et al. 2024 [56] 2014–2023 647 endoscopic endonasal, transcranial, simultaneous or combined two-staged 42.0 3.1c na na
This series 1982–2022 289 transsphenoidal, transcranial, combined two-staged 20.5 2.4 40.1 23.1

aNear-total resection (> 90% of initial tumor volume)

bIncluding GTR and near-total resection (90–100% of the tumor)

cIncluding coma

Complication rates for postoperative meningitis and CSF-leaks were 3.5% and 2.8%, respectively, with no significant difference between the surgical approaches. The occurrence of cranial nerve palsy and amaurosis was found to be statistically significant, with the transsphenoidal cohort demonstrating the lowest rates of each (4.0% and 1.5%, respectively). Transcranial procedures involve direct manipulation of sensitive structures such as the optic nerves or cranial nerves close to the base of the brain. This explains the higher risk of damage to these structures.

In general, surgical treatment more often improves than worsens pituitary function in pituitary adenomas [7, 22]. However, this does not apply to giant adenomas, as shown by the present study. The most frequent complication was hypopituitarism, at 34.7%. Overall, no significant difference was found between the surgical modalities and new hypopituitarism. As anterior pituitary insufficiency can be caused not only by surgical treatment, but also by the tumor itself or radiation therapy, the influencing factors must be differentiated. However, a recovery of pituitary function is not to be expected in the majority of patients.

As postoperative hyponatremia can lead to significant morbidity, including neurological deterioration and prolonged hospitalization, sodium levels should be carefully monitored. In this series it occurred in 11.4% of patients and could be controlled in all of them. A total of 27 patients (9.6%) developed diabetes insipidus after the operation, and in about half of these patients it persisted for more than three months after the operation. There was no significant difference in the occurrence of hyponatremia and diabetes insipidus regarding the surgical approaches.

When considering all the different factors influencing tumor resectability and complication rates, it must be noted that this series extended over a period of 40 years. During this time, surgical techniques, endocrinological assays, remission criteria, radiological imaging and data collection methods have all changed.

Limitations

A major limitation of this study is its retrospective design, which can introduce biases and limitations in terms of data availability and quality. Technological advances have made diagnostic and therapeutic options much more extensive and precise since the earlier phases of the study. Changes in imaging techniques and methods of determining hormone levels could affect the comparability of diagnoses and treatment strategies over the entire period.

Conclusion

The treatment of GPAs remains a significant challenge in modern medicine. As different characteristics of these large tumors require different approaches, each patient should receive an individual treatment plan. The transsphenoidal approach continues to be the primary consideration for non-prolactinomas. If necessary, it should be combined with a transcranial procedure. Considering both aspects, maximizing tumor resection and minimizing complications, the outcome for patients with GPA has improved dramatically since the early reports of surgical treatment of these tumors [48, 55, 66]. Despite numerous advances, further research and development is needed in terms of minimizing postoperative bleeding, evaluating two-staged or simultaneous procedures as well as the importance of adjuvant therapies.

Abbreviations

CN

Cranial nerve

CSF

Cerebrospinal fluid

GPA

Giant pituitary adenoma

GTR

Gross-total resection

na

Not available

ns

Not significant

RT

Radiotherapy

TC

Transcranial

TS

Transsphenoidal

Author contribution

Idea: Binder, Buchfelder. Data collection and design: Binder, Zhao, Breu, Repschläger. Statistical Analysis and Writing: Binder. Supervision, Editing: Buchfelder, Fahlbusch.

Funding

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. This study was supported by the Förderverein Neurochirurgische Forschung an der Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg e.V.

Data availability

Not applicable.

Declarations

Ethical approval

All procedures involving human participants in this study were performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee, the principles of the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its subsequent amendments, or comparable standards.

Consent to participate

For the retrospective collection and analysis of clinical data, patients’ consent was obtained as part of the general treatment contract at our university hospital, which includes consent to the use of anonymized data for research purposes.

Clinical trial number

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Footnotes

Publisher's Note

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

References

  • 1.Acharya S, Gopal R, Menon P, Bandgar T, Shah N (2010) Giant prolactinoma and effectiveness of medical management. Endocr Pract 16(1):42–46 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Alleyne C, Barrow D, Oyesiku N (2002) Combined transsphenoidal and pterional craniotomy approach to giant pituitary tumors. Surg Neurol 57(6):380–390 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Barzaghi LR, Losa M, Giovanelli M, Mortini P (2007) Complications of transsphenoidal surgery in patients with pituitary adenoma: experience at a single centre. Acta Neurochir 149(9):877–886 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Baumann F, Schmid C, Bernays R-L (2010) Intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging-guided transsphenoidal surgery for giant pituitary adenomas. Neurosurg Rev 33(1):83–90 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Buchfelder M, Fahlbusch R (2002) The “classic” transsphenoidal approach for resection of pituitary tumors. Oper Tech Neurosurg 5(4):210–217 [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Buchfelder M, Kreutzer J (2008) Transcranial surgery for pituitary adenomas. Pituitary 11(4):375–384 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Buchfelder M, Schlaffer SM (2009) Surgical treatment of pituitary tumours. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab 23(5):677–692 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Burke WT, Penn DL, Castlen JP, Donoho DA, Repetti CS, Iuliano S, Barkhoudarian G, Laws ER (2020) Prolactinomas and nonfunctioning adenomas: preoperative diagnosis of tumor type using serum prolactin and tumor size. J Neurosurg 133(2):321–328 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Cander S, Oz Gul O, Eylemer E, Gullulu Boz E, Gunes E, Hakyemez B, Yilmazlar S, Ersoy C (2021) Comparison of the effects of medical and surgical treatments in giant prolactinoma: a single-center experience. Hormones Athens 20(3):491–498 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Casar-Borota O, Burman P, Lopes MB (2025) The 2022 WHO classification of tumors of the pituitary gland: an update on aggressive and metastatic pituitary neuroendocrine tumors. Brain Pathol 35(1):e13302 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Ceylan S, Sen HE, Ozsoy B, Ceylan EC, Ergen A, Selek A, Anik Y, Balci S, Cabuk B, Anik I (2022) Endoscopic approach for giant pituitary adenoma: clinical outcomes of 205 patients and comparison of two proposed classification systems for preoperative prediction of extent of resection. J Neurosurg 136(3):786–800 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Chabot JD, Chakraborty S, Imbarrato G, Dehdashti AR (2015) Evaluation of outcomes after endoscopic endonasal surgery for large and giant pituitary macroadenoma: a retrospective review of 39 consecutive patients. World Neurosurg 84(4):978–988 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Chen Y, Xu X, Cao J, Jie Y, Wang L, Cai F, Chen S, Yan W, Hong Y, Zhang J, Wu Q (2022) Transsphenoidal surgery of giant pituitary adenoma: results and experience of 239 cases in a single center. Front Endocrinol 13:879702. 10.3389/fendo.2022.879702 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Chibbaro S, Signorelli F, Milani D, Cebula H, Scibilia A, Bozzi MT, Messina R, Zaed I, Todeschi J, Ollivier I, Mallereau CH, Dannhoff G, Romano A, Cammarota F, Servadei F, Pop R, Baloglu S, Lasio GB, Luca F (2021) Primary endoscopic endonasal management of giant pituitary adenomas: outcome and pitfalls from a large prospective multicenter experience. Cancers 13(14):3603 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Constantino ER, Leal R, Ferreira CC, Acioly MA, Landeiro JA (2016) Surgical outcomes of the endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal approach for large and giant pituitary adenomas: institutional experience with special attention to approach-related complications. Arq Neuropsiquiatr 74(5):388–395 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Cusimano MD, Kan P, Nassiri F, Anderson J, Goguen J, Vanek I, Smyth HS, Fenton R, Muller PJ, Kovacs K (2012) Outcomes of surgically treated giant pituitary tumours. Can J Neurol Sci 39(4):446–457 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.De Paiva Neto MA, Vandergrift A, Fatemi N, Gorgulho AA, DeSalles AA, Cohan P, Wang C, Swerdloff R, Kelly DF (2010) Endonasal transsphenoidal surgery and multimodality treatment for giant pituitary adenomas. Clin Endocrinol 72(4):512–519 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Elshazly K, Kshettry VR, Farrell CJ, Nyquist G, Rosen M, Evans JJ (2018) Clinical outcomes after endoscopic endonasal resection of giant pituitary adenomas. World Neurosurg 114:e447–e456 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Fahlbusch R, Buchfelder M, Müller OA (1986) Transsphenoidal surgery for Cushing’s disease. J R Soc Med 79(5):262–9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Fahlbusch R, Ganslandt O, Buchfelder M, Schott W, Nimsky C (2001) Intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging during transsphenoidal surgery. J Neurosurg 95(3):381–390 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Fallah N, Taghvaei M, Sadaghiani S, Sadrhosseini SM, Esfahanian F, Zeinalizadeh M (2019) Surgical outcome of endoscopic endonasal surgery of large and giant pituitary adenomas: an institutional experience from the Middle East. World Neurosurg 132:e802–e811 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Fatemi N, Dusick JR, Mattozo C, McArthur DL, Cohan P, Boscardin J, Wang C, Swerdloff RS, Kelly DF (2008) Pituitary hormonal loss and recovery after transsphenoidal adenoma removal. Neurosurgery 63(4):709–719 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Fu P, He Y-s, Cen Y-c, Huang Q, Guo K-t, Zhao H-y, Xiang W (2016) Microneurosurgery and subsequent gamma knife radiosurgery for functioning pituitary macroadenomas or giant adenomas: one institution’s experience. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 145:8–13 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Goel A, Nadkarni T (1996) Surgical management of giant pituitary tumours - a review of 30 cases. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 138(9):1042–1049 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Goel A, Nadkarni T, Muzumdar D, Desai K, Phalke U, Sharma P (2004) Giant pituitary tumors: a study based on surgical treatment of 118 cases. Surg Neurol 61(5):436–445 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Gondim JA, Almeida JP, Albuquerque LA, Gomes EF, Schops M (2014) Giant pituitary adenomas: surgical outcomes of 50 cases operated on by the endonasal endoscopic approach. World Neurosurg 82(1–2):e281-90 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Graillon T, Castinetti F, Fuentes S, Gras R, Brue T, Dufour H (2020) Transcranial approach in giant pituitary adenomas: results and outcome in a modern series. J Neurosurg Sci 64(1):25–36 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Grote E (1982) Characteristics of giant pituitary adenomas. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 60(3):141–153 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Guo F, Song L, Bai J, Zhao P, Sun H, Liu X, Yang B, Wang S (2012) Successful treatment for giant pituitary adenomas through diverse transcranial approaches in a series of 15 consecutive patients. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 114(7):885–890 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Han S, Gao W, Jing Z, Wang Y, Wu A (2017) How to deal with giant pituitary adenomas: transsphenoidal or transcranial, simultaneous or two-staged? J Neurooncol 132:313–321 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Hardy J (1969) Transphenoidal microsurgery of the normal and pathological pituitary: chapter X. Neurosurgery 16:185–217 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Iglesias P, Rodríguez Berrocal V, Díez JJ (2018) Giant pituitary adenoma: histological types, clinical features and therapeutic approaches. Endocrine 61(3):407–421 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Jaeger W, Thomann H (1982) Deutsche Ophthalmologische Gesellschaft - Empfehlungen zur Beurteilung der Minderung der Erwerbsfähigkeit durch Schäden des Sehvermögens September 1981. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 180(03):242–244 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Jefferson G (1940) Extrasellar extensions of pituitary adenomas. Proc R Soc Med 33(7):433–458 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Joshi KC, Kolb B, Khalili BF, Munich SA, Byrne RW (2024) Surgical strategies in the treatment of giant pituitary adenomas. Oper Neurosurg 26(1):4–15 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Karki M, Sun J, Yadav CP, Zhao B (2017) Large and giant pituitary adenoma resection by microscopic trans-sphenoidal surgery: surgical outcomes and complications in 123 consecutive patients. J Clin Neurosci 44:310–314 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Katznelson L, Laws ER Jr, Melmed S, Molitch ME, Murad MH, Utz A, Wass JAH (2014) Acromegaly: an Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 99(11):3933–3951 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Ke D, Xu L, Wu D, Yang S, Liu S, Xie M, Xiao S (2023) Surgical management of giant pituitary adenomas: institutional experience and clinical outcomes of 94 patients. Front Oncol 13:1255768 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Knosp E, Steiner E, Kitz K, Matula C (1993) Pituitary adenomas with invasion of the cavernous sinus space: a magnetic resonance imaging classification compared with surgical findings. Neurosurgery 33(4):610–7; discussion 7–8 [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 40.Komotar RJ, Starke RM, Raper DM, Anand VK, Schwartz TH (2012) Endoscopic endonasal compared with microscopic transsphenoidal and open transcranial resection of giant pituitary adenomas. Pituitary 15(2):150–159 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Koutourousiou M, Gardner PA, Fernandez-Miranda JC, Paluzzi A, Wang EW, Snyderman CH (2013) Endoscopic endonasal surgery for giant pituitary adenomas: advantages and limitations. J Neurosurg 118(3):621–631 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Kuo C-H, Yen Y-S, Wu J-C, Chang P-Y, Chang H-K, Tu T-H, Huang W-C, Cheng H (2016) Primary endoscopic transnasal transsphenoidal surgery for giant pituitary adenoma. World Neurosurg 91:121–128 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Leung GK, Law HY, Hung KN, Fan YW, Lui WM (2011) Combined simultaneous transcranial and transsphenoidal resection of large-to-giant pituitary adenomas. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 153(7):1401–1408 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Makarenko S, Alzahrani I, Karsy M, Deopujari C, Couldwell WT (2022) Outcomes and surgical nuances in management of giant pituitary adenomas: a review of 108 cases in the endoscopic era. J Neurosurg. 10.3171/2021.10.jns21659 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Micko A, Agam MS, Brunswick A, Strickland BA, Rutkowski MJ, Carmichael JD, Shiroishi MS, Zada G, Knosp E, Wolfsberger S (2022) Treatment strategies for giant pituitary adenomas in the era of endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery: a multicenter series. J Neurosurg 136(3):776–785 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Micko ASG, Keritam O, Marik W, Strickland BA, Briggs RG, Shahrestani S, Cardinal T, Knosp E, Zada G, Wolfsberger S (2022) Dumbbell-shaped pituitary adenomas: prognostic factors for prediction of tumor nondescent of the supradiaphragmal component from a multicenter series. J Neurosurg 137(3):609–617 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Micko ASG, Wöhrer A, Wolfsberger S, Knosp E (2015) Invasion of the cavernous sinus space in pituitary adenomas: endoscopic verification and its correlation with an MRI-based classification. J Neurosurg 122(4):803–811 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Mohr G, Hardy J, Comtois R, Beauregard H (1990) Surgical management of giant pituitary adenomas. Can J Neurol Sci 17(1):62–66 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Moraes AB, dos Marques Santos Silva C, Vieira Neto L, Gadelha MR (2013) Giant prolactinomas: the therapeutic approach. Clin Endocrinol 79(4):447–56 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Mortini P, Barzaghi R, Losa M, Boari N, Giovanelli M (2007) Surgical treatment of giant pituitary adenomas: strategies and results in a series of 95 consecutive patients. Neurosurgery 60(6):993–1004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Müslüman AM, Cansever T, Yılmaz A, Kanat A, Oba E, Çavuşoğlu H, Şirinoğlu D, Aydın Y (2011) Surgical results of large and giant pituitary adenomas with special consideration of ophthalmologic outcomes. World Neurosurg 76(1):141–148 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Nishioka H, Hara T, Nagata Y, Fukuhara N, Yamaguchi-Okada M, Yamada S (2017) Inherent tumor characteristics that limit effective and safe resection of giant nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas. World Neurosurg 106:645–52 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Nomikos P, Buchfelder M, Fahlbusch R (2005) The outcome of surgery in 668 patients with acromegaly using current criteria of biochemical ‘cure.’ Eur J Endocrinol 152(3):379–87 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Peto I, Abou-Al-Shaar H, White TG, Abunimer AM, Kwan K, Zavadskiy G, Wagner K, Black K, Eisenberg M, Bruni M, Dehdashti AR (2020) Sources of residuals after endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery for large and giant pituitary adenomas. Acta Neurochir 162(10):2341–2351 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Pia HW, Grote E, Hildebrandt G (1985) Giant pituitary adenomas. Neurosurg Rev 8(3):207–220 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Qiao N, Gao W, Deng X, Xin T, Zhang G, Wu N, Wang P, Bi Y, Cong Z, Zhou Z, Li J, Sun S, Li M, Tang W, Yan X, Wang W, Qiu W, Yao S, Ye Z (2024) Combined simultaneous transsphenoidal and transcranial regimen improves surgical outcomes in complex giant pituitary adenomas: a longitudinal retrospective cohort study. Int J Surg 110(7):4043–4052 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Rahimli T, Hidayetov T, Yusifli Z, Memmedzade H, Rajabov T, Aghayev K (2021) Endoscopic endonasal approach to giant pituitary adenomas: surgical outcomes and review of the literature. World Neurosurg 149:e1043–e1055 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Romano A, Chibbaro S, Marsella M, Oretti G, Spiriev T, Iaccarino C, Servadei F (2010) Combined endoscopic transsphenoidal–transventricular approach for resection of a giant pituitary macroadenoma. World Neurosurg 74(1):161–164 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Saeger W, Lüdecke DK, Buchfelder M, Fahlbusch R, Quabbe HJ, Petersenn S (2007) Pathohistological classification of pituitary tumors: 10 years of experience with the German Pituitary Tumor Registry. Eur J Endocrinol 156(2):203–216 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Schwyzer L, Starke RM, Jane JA, Oldfield EH (2015) Percent reduction of growth hormone levels correlates closely with percent resected tumor volume in acromegaly. J Neurosurg 122(4):798–802 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Sharma BS, Sinha S, Suri A (2007) Treatment of giant pituitary adenomas. Neurosurg Q 17(2):120–127 [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Shrivastava RK, Arginteanu MS, King WA, Post KD (2002) Giant prolactinomas: clinical management and long-term follow up. J Neurosurg 97(2):299–306 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Sinha S, Sharma BS (2010) Giant pituitary adenomas - an enigma revisited. Microsurgical treatment strategies and outcome in a series of 250 patients. Br J Neurosurg 24(1):31–39 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Solari D, Cavallo LM, Graziadio C, Corvino S, Bove I, Esposito F, Cappabianca P (2022) Giant non-functioning pituitary adenomas: treatment considerations. Brain Sci. 10.3390/brainsci12091256 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Symon L, Jakubowski J (1979) Transcranial management of pituitary tumours with suprasellar extension. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 42(2):123–133 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Symon L, Jakubowski J, Kendall B (1979) Surgical treatment of giant pituitary adenomas. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 42(11):973–982 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Tang OY, Chen J-S, Monje S, Kumarapuram S, Eloy JA, Liu JK (2025) Comparison of surgical modalities for giant pituitary adenoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 1413 patients. Oper Neurosurg 28(1):1–18 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Wang F, Zhou T, Wei S, Meng X, Zhang J, Hou Y, Sun G (2015) Endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal surgery of 1,166 pituitary adenomas. Surg Endosc 29(6):1270–1280 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Wu ZB, Yu CJ, Su ZP, Zhuge QC, Wu JS, Zheng WM (2006) Bromocriptine treatment of invasive giant prolactinomas involving the cavernous sinus: results of a long-term follow up. Journal of Neurosurgery JNS 104(1):54–61 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Xue-Fei S, Yong-Fei W, Shi-Qi L, Jing-Song W, Yao Z, Ying M, Liang-Fu Z (2008) Microsurgical treatment for giant and irregular pituitary adenomas in a series of 54 consecutive patients. Br J Neurosurg 22(5):636–48 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Yang C, Zhang J, Li J, Wu N, Jia D (2019) The role of multimodal navigation in endoscopic endonasal surgery for giant pituitary adenomas. Gland Surg 8(6):663–673 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Yano S, Hide T, Shinojima N (2017) Efficacy and complications of endoscopic skull base surgery for giant pituitary adenomas. World Neurosurg 99:533–542 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Yildirim AE, Sahinoglu M, Ekici I, Cagil E, Karaoglu D, Celik H, Nacar OA, Belen AD (2016) Nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas are really clinically nonfunctioning? Clinical and endocrinological symptoms and outcomes with endoscopic endonasal treatment. World Neurosurg 85:185–192 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Zhang Y, Xu B, Jiang J, Feng S, Bu B, Zhou T, Yu X, Zhou D (2015) [Treatment for giant pituitary adenomas through transcranial approach in a series of 112 consecutive patients]. Zhonghua wai ke za zhi [Chinese journal of surgery] 53(3):197–201 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Zhao B, Wei Y-K, Li G-L, Li Y-N, Yao Y, Kang J, Ma W-B, Yang Y, Wang R-Z (2010) Extended transsphenoidal approach for pituitary adenomas invading the anterior cranial base, cavernous sinus, and clivus: a single-center experience with 126 consecutive cases: clinical article. J Neurosurg 112(1):108–117 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Zheng Y, Chen D-M, Wang Y, Mai R-K, Zhu Z-F (2020) Surgical management of growth hormone-secreting pituitary adenomas: a retrospective analysis of 33 patients. Med 99(19):e19855 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.


Articles from Acta Neurochirurgica are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES