ArticleChinese neurosurgical journal2020
Application of endoscopic endonasal approach in skull base surgeries: summary of 1886 cases in a single center for 10 consecutive years.
Article in Chinese neurosurgical journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Supraorbital keyhole approach (SOKHA) versus endoscopic endonasal approach (EEA) for suprasellar meningioma (SSM) resection: systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
- Not Every Size Fits All: Surgical Corridors for Clival and Cervical Chordomas-A Systematic Review of the Literature and Illustrative Cases.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Outcomes of Endoscopic Resection in Pediatric Skull Base Chordoma: A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2023Review
- Systematic Review Comparing Open versus Endoscopic Surgery in Clival Chordomas and a 10-Year Single-Center Experience.Journal of neurological surgery. Part B, Skull base · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndonasal endoscopic skull base surgery has undergone rapid technological developments and is now widely performed, but its strengths and weaknesses deserve further investigation and deliberation. This study was performed to investigate the surgical indications, complications, and technical advantages and disadvantages of endonasal endoscopic skull base surgery.
methodsThe clinical data of 1886 endoscopic endonasal skull base surgeries performed in our ward at Beijing Tiantan Hospital from June 2006 to June 2016 were retrospectively analyzed.
resultsOne thousand ninety-three (73.4%, 1490) pituitary adenomas, 54 (24.9%, 217) chordomas, 28 (80.0%, 35) craniopharyngiomas, and 15 (83.3%, 18) meningiomas underwent total resection. Two patients died postoperatively, both having pituitary adenomas. Other postoperative complications included olfactory disorders (
conclusionEndoscopic surgery is an innovative surgical technique and the first choice for most midline extradural lesions such as chordomas, and an excellent choice for pituitary adenomas. It probably will be a good technique for many kinds of craniopharyngiomas and a common technique for most of skull base meningiomas, so the surgical indications of these cases should be chosen carefully to make good use of its respective advantages.
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.