Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22038033›Full record

SynthesisPituitary2012

Endoscopic endonasal compared with microscopic transsphenoidal and open transcranial resection of giant pituitary adenomas.

Ricardo J Komotar, Robert M Starke, Daniel M S Raper, Vijay K Anand, Theodore H Schwartz

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Pituitary, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 71 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
71citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

71 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 230 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Pituitary Stalk Lesion Sampling by Transsphenoidal Posterior Lobe Biopsy: A Case Series.Journal of neurological surgery. Part B, Skull base · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

11 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Ricardo J KomotarDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Miami University, Miami, FL, USA.
Robert M Starke
Daniel M S Raper
Vijay K Anand
Theodore H Schwartz
Cornell University · USNeurological Surgery · USNorth Shore Hospital · NZUniversity of Virginia · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Giant (>4 cm) pituitary macroadenomas often require surgery to decompress the optic nerves. Compared with traditional open or transsphenoidal microscopic methods, the extended endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal approach offers the potential for aggressive resection via a minimal access corridor. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to further our understanding of the role of endoscopy in the management of these challenging lesions. MEDLINE search of the modern literature (1995-2010) to identify surgical series for pediatric and adult pituitary adenomas >4 cm in maximal diameter. Patient and tumor characteristics, resection, morbidity and visual outcome were compared by approach. Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests with post-hoc Bonferroni analysis were used for statistical analyses. Sixteen studies (478 patients) were included. Compared with the open cohort, the endoscopic cohort had higher rates of gross total resection (47.2% vs. 9.6%; P < 0.003) and improved visual outcome (91.1% vs. 45.7%; P < 0.003). The microscopic transsphenoidal cohort had lower rate of total resection and worse visual outcomes than the endoscopic group. There were no instances of postoperative CSF leak reported in the endoscopic group. The transcranial group had a higher rate perioperative mortality compared to the transsphenoidal group (P = 0.004). In select cases, the endoscopic endonasal approach is safe and effective for the treatment of giant pituitary adenomas, with the potential for gross total resection and improved visual outcome. CSF leak, which is a major limitation of the endonasal approach, may be avoided using meticulous multi-layer closure and vascularised nasoseptal flaps.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultChildEndoscopyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPituitary NeoplasmsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID22038033
OpenAlexW1989180819

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.