ArticleTranslational neuroscience2017
Keyhole Surgery of Pineal Area Tumors - Personal Experience in 22 Patients.
Article in Translational neuroscience, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- What is the best surgical approach for Pineal Region Tumors? A systematic literature review and anatomical comparative study.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2026Pooled it
- Anatomic, qualitative, and quantitative evaluation of the variants of the infratentorial supracerebellar approach to the posteroinferior thalamus.Neurosurgical review · 2021Article
- International expert consensus statement about methods and indications for keyhole microneurosurgery from International Society on Minimally Invasive Neurosurgery.Neurosurgical review · 2021Review
- Supratentorial and Infratentorial Approaches to Pineal Surgery: A Database Analysis.Journal of neurological surgery. Part B, Skull base · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPineal area tumors are challenging for surgery due to their location. However, the removal of the lesion is critical for further treatment and survival of the patients. MATERIAL AND
methods22 patients with pineal area tumors were surgically treated via keyhole medial suboccipital craniotomy and supracerebellar midline approach All the patients were operated in the sitting position with the use of operating microscope and microsurgical technique.
resultsAll patients survived surgery in a perfect condition, and no one patient worsened after surgery. No complications due to the sitting position were noted.
conclusionsSurgical removal of pineal area tumors via small suboccipital craniotomy is safe and with the use of microsurgical techniques the results of surgical treatment are excellent. The sitting position of the patients gives a better view to the surgeon. We did not observe any intraoperational complications due to the sitting position.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.