Do Minimally Invasive Approaches to Pediatric Orbital Tumors Provide an Advantage on Outcome and Efficiency?

OBJECTIVE

The present study evaluated whether minimally invasive approaches to orbital lesions could improve surgical, clinical, and aesthetic outcomes compared with more invasive ones. This is the first study specifically addressing this topic in children.

METHODS

Children consecutively operated on from January 2010 to January 2020 were analyzed. Thirty patients matched the inclusion criteria and were divided into group A: 14 cases treated with traditional surgical approaches; and group B: 16 cases managed by minimally invasive approaches.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of demographic data and extent of tumor resection. Mean surgical time for the approach (40 minutes vs. 70 minutes, P < 0.0001), surgical complication such as periorbital edema (37% vs. 78%, P = 0.02) and dural tear (0 vs. 21%, P = 0.05), and procedures cost (P < 0.0001) were significantly reduced in group B. Regarding clinical outcomes, group B showed a significant reduction both in terms of postoperative pain (mean score based on visual pain scale was 2.9 vs. 4.1 P = 0.003) and mean hospitalization time (4.5 days vs. 5.5 days, P = 0.0004). The cosmetic outcome according to the Sloan classification was significantly better in group B as well (81% vs. 36% class I patients, P = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of mini-invasive approaches to orbital tumor has clear advantages in terms of surgical, clinical, and cosmetic outcomes in comparable patients; therefore, they should be preferred whenever feasible. Craniotomic approaches remain necessary for very large tumors.