ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022
Clinical Outcomes of Transcranial and Endoscopic Endonasal Surgery for Craniopharyngiomas: A Single-Institution Experience.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Evolution of surgical management and functional outcomes of craniopharyngiomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Neurosurgical review · 2026Pooled it
- Endoscopic endonasal versus open approach for craniopharyngioma treatment: a systematic review of clinical characteristics.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2025Pooled it
- Endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal approach improves endocrine function and surgical outcome in primary craniopharyngioma resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of surgical oncology · 2024Pooled it
- Hypothalamic obesity in pediatric vs. adult craniopharyngioma: mechanisms, management, and cardiometabolic outcomes.Pituitary · 2026Review
- Complication Spectrum Following Expanded Endoscopic Endonasal Surgery for Intradural Skull Base Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Brain sciences · 2026Review
- The Evolving Role of the Endoscopic Endonasal Transplanum-Transtuberculum Approach in the Management of Craniopharyngiomas: A Systematic Review of Outcomes, Reconstruction, and Surgical Evolution.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Combined surgery and proton radiotherapy in the management of craniopharyngiomas: an update with paradigmatic and challenging case scenarios.Neurosurgical review · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of the outcomes of craniotomy and endoscopic resection for recurrent craniopharyngioma: a single institution study.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- Article
- The key point of transsphenoidal surgery for infradiaphragmatic craniopharyngioma：Better sellar diaphragm resection.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Comparative efficacy of transcranial and endoscopic surgery for craniopharyngioma: A systematic review and meta-analysis of contemporary literature.Surgical neurology international · 2024Article
- Current Role of Endoscopic Endonasal Approach for Craniopharyngiomas: A 10-Year Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparison with the Open Transcranial Approach.Brain sciences · 2023Review
- Endoscopic Endonasal Approach in Craniopharyngiomas: Representative Cases and Technical Nuances for the Young Neurosurgeon.Brain sciences · 2023Article
- Relationship between postoperative hypothalamic injury and water and sodium disturbance in patients with craniopharyngioma: A retrospective study of 178 cases.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2022Article
- Surgical management of tuberculum sellae meningioma: Transcranial approach or endoscopic endonasal approach?Frontiers in surgery · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveCraniopharyngioma has always been a challenge for the neurosurgeon, and there is no consensus on optimal treatment. The objective of this study was to compare surgical outcomes and complications between transcranial surgery (TCS) and endoscopic endonasal surgery (EES) of craniopharyngiomas.
methodsA retrospective review of patients who underwent craniopharyngioma resection at Wuhan Union Hospital between January 2010 and December 2019 was performed. A total of 273 patients were enrolled in this retrospective study. All patients were analyzed with surgical effects, endocrinologic outcomes, complications, and follow-up results.
resultsA total of 185 patients underwent TCS and 88 underwent EES. There were no significant differences in patient demographic data, preoperative symptoms, and tumor characteristics between the two groups. The mean follow-up was 30.5 months (range 8-51 months). The EES group had a greater gross total resection (GTR) rate (89.8% EES vs. 77.3% TCS, p < 0.05) and lower rate of hypopituitarism (53.4% EES vs. 68.1% TCS, p < 0.05) and diabetes insipidus (DI) (51.1% EES vs. 72.4% TCS, p < 0.05). More postoperative cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leaks occurred in the EES group (4.5% EES vs. 0% TCS, p < 0.05). More patients in the EES group with preoperative visual deficits experienced improvement after surgery (74.5% EES vs. 56.3% TCS, p < 0.05). There were statistical differences in the recurrence rates (12.5% EES vs. 23.8% TCS, p < 0.05) between the 2 groups.
conclusionThese data support the view that EES is a safe and effective minimally invasive surgery compared to TCS. Compared to TCS, EES has fewer surgical complications and a lower recurrence rate.
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.