Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35481274›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neurology2022

Endoscopic Endonasal Transsphenoidal Surgery for Recurrent Craniopharyngiomas.

Zhenguang Feng, Chuzhong Li, Lei Cao, Ning Qiao, Wentao Wu, Jiwei Bai, Peng Zhao, Songbai Gui

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Enhanced outcomes in residual or recurrent craniopharyngioma: evaluating combined gamma knife and phosphorus-32 brachytherapy.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Zhenguang FengDepartment of Neurosurgery, Tianjin First Center Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Chuzhong LiBeijing Neurosurgical Institute, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Lei CaoDepartment of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Ning QiaoDepartment of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Wentao WuDepartment of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Jiwei BaiDepartment of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Peng ZhaoDepartment of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Songbai GuiDepartment of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Beijing Tian Tan Hospital · CNCapital Medical University · CNTianjin Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Object: Although revision surgery for recurrent craniopharyngiomas is more challenging than primary surgery and often accompanies a higher risk of death and complications, endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal surgery (EETS) is sometimes still an effective and reliable treatment option. In this study, we introduced the surgical outcomes of EETS for recurrent craniopharyngiomas and summarized the surgical experiences. Methods: Between 2014 and 2018, 28 patients with recurrent craniopharyngiomas underwent 29 EETS in our department. We regarded the patient undergoing two EETS as two independent patients in statistical analysis. Of the 29 patients, 16 had undergone 1 previous surgery, 10 had undergone 2 previous surgeries, and the remaining 3 patients had undergone 3 surgeries. The extent of resection, visual and endocrine outcomes, and complications of all the patients were collected and analyzed. Results: Gross total resection was accomplished in 16 patients (55.17%), subtotal resection in 11 patients (37.93%), and partial resection in 2 patients (6.9%). Among the 22 patients with preoperative visual acuity and visual field impairment, some degree of vision improvement was observed in 18 patients, 3 patients were without visual change, and perpetual deterioration of vision occurred in one patient. The remaining six patients had normal vision before and after surgery. Postoperative endocrine tests showed that, among five patients with normal preoperative pituitary hormone function, only one patient still had normal pituitary hormone function and the other four patients had one or more hypothalamic-pituitary axes involved. None of the patients with preoperative endocrine dysfunction had endocrine function improved. Diabetes insipidus was observed in six new cases postoperatively. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage occurred in 1 patient. One patient had bacterial meningitis, which was cured with antibiotics and a lumbar drain. No serious morbidity and mortality occurred in all patients. Conclusions: For recurrent craniopharyngiomas, a personalized treatment plan should be developed according to the tumor characteristics and the patient's situation. There is no omnipotent method to be used for all patients. The EETS still is a safe and effective way to treat recurrent craniopharyngiomas in appropriate patients.

Indexed as

craniopharyngiomasendocrineendoscopic endonasal transsphenoidalrecurrentsurgical treatment

Identifiers

PMID35481274
PMCPMC9035929
OpenAlexW4223502912

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.