An interventional study of Endoscopic Endonasal Approach for Skull Base Lesions. in Skull Base Neoplasms, sponsored by Assiut University. Not yet recruiting at 1 site in Egypt. Open to participants aged 16 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-08-26.
Sponsored by Assiut University · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment
Aim of this study is to evaluate the surgical and functional outcomes of the extended endoscopic endonasal approach (EEEA) in the management of skull base lesions, including extent of resection, postoperative complications, and clinical outcomes.
The extended endoscopic endonasal approach (EEEA) has emerged as a transformative technique in the surgical management of skull base lesions [1-3]. By utilizing natural nasal corridors, this minimally invasive approach provides direct midline access to a wide range of anterior, middle, and posterior skull base lesions, including pituitary adenomas, craniopharyngiomas, meningiomas, and chordomas [1,6]. Compared to traditional transcranial approaches, EEEA offers several advantages such as improved visualization with angled endoscopes, reduced brain retraction, and potentially lower morbidity [2,4].
Despite these advantages, achieving gross total resection (GTR) remains challenging and is influenced by multiple factors. Lesion characteristics such as size, location, consistency, and degree of invasion into critical neurovascular structures-particularly the cavernous sinus and internal carotid artery-play a crucial role [7,8]. Additionally, surgical factors including the chosen approach, reconstruction technique, and surgeon experience significantly impact the extent of resection and postoperative outcomes [4,5].
Understanding the predictors that influence the extent of resection is essential for optimizing surgical planning, improving patient outcomes, and minimizing complications such as cerebrospinal fluid leakage and neurological deficits [7]. Therefore, evaluating surgical outcomes and identifying key predictive factors in EEEA for skull base lesions remains an important area of ongoing research.
20 studies on the registry are indexed under Skull Base Neoplasms; 7 are open to participants now.
This study's planned enrollment of 30 is close to the median of 30 across 12 interventional studies indexed under Skull Base Neoplasms.
Browse Skull Base Neoplasms studies →Assiut University is the lead sponsor of 5,078 studies on the registry; 2,178 are open to participants now.
Of its 14 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 0 (0%) have results posted.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
1. Adult patients aged 18 years or older. 2. Patients with radiologically confirmed skull base lesions (based on MRI ± CT) involving the anterior, middle, or posterior skull base.
3. Patients undergoing lesion resection using the extended endoscopic endonasal approach (EEEA).
4. Lesions amenable to endoscopic endonasal access, including: Pituitary adenomas with extrasellar extension Craniopharyngiomas Skull base meningiomas Chordomas and other midline skull base lesions 5. Availability of complete preoperative assessment, including: Clinical evaluation Neuro-ophthalmological assessment (when applicable) Radiological imaging 6. Availability of detailed intraoperative data, including surgical approach and intraoperative findings.
7. Availability of early postoperative MRI (within 72 hours to 3 months) to assess the extent of resection.
8. Patients with adequate postoperative follow-up (minimum 3 months) for evaluation of outcomes and complications.
Exclusion Criteria:
1. Patients aged less than 18 years. 2. Patients who underwent transcranial approaches. 3. Lesions not primarily involving the skull base or not suitable for endoscopic endonasal access.
4. Patients with incomplete clinical, radiological, or operative data. 5. Absence of early postoperative MRI, making assessment of the extent of resection unreliable.
6. Patients with insufficient follow-up (less than 3 months). 7. Cases managed by only without attempted lesion resection. 8. Patients with severe comorbidities significantly affecting surgical outcome (e.g., advanced systemic disease), if they introduce bias in outcome assessment.
Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
A biopsy takes a small piece of tissue to examine. “Archival tissue” is a sample already taken, for example at diagnosis, and kept by the hospital.
Whether a stored sample will do depends on when it was taken, how much there is and what the study needs. Ask whether the study accepts your stored sample or needs a new biopsy.
Biopsy and archival tissue
A biopsy takes a small piece of tissue to examine. “Archival tissue” is a sample already taken, for example at diagnosis, and kept by the hospital.
Whether a stored sample will do depends on when it was taken, how much there is and what the study needs. Ask whether the study accepts your stored sample or needs a new biopsy.
Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
Surgical Outcomes of Extended Endoscopic Endonasal Approach for Skull Base Lesions.
Procedure: Endoscopic Endonasal Approach for Skull Base Lesions.
Surgical Outcomes of Extended Endoscopic Endonasal Approach for Skull Base Lesions
Extent of lesion resection
Extent of lesion resection (Gross total resection vs Subtotal resection) based on postoperative MRI
Time frame: 2 years
Plan to share: No
This study is not yet recruiting, as verified in Aug 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.