SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2022
Craniopharyngioma resection by endoscopic endonasal approach versus transcranial approach: A systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies.
Synthesis 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 22 papers, 2 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
22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Modern treatment of craniopharyngioma to improve outcomes: evidence of a change of paradigm.Endocrine · 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
- 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
- The predictive value of intraoperative visual evoked potential monitoring for postoperative visual outcomes following extended endoscopic endonasal resection of recurrent craniopharyngiomas.Chinese neurosurgical journal · 2026Article
- Frontiers of Innovation and Clinical Application in Endoscopic Endonasal Transsphenoidal Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Comparative outcomes of transcranial craniotomy and endoscopic endonasal surgery for craniopharyngioma: a single-center retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- The Craniopharyngioma Quality of Life (C-QOL) Index: a preliminary disease-specific, patient-centered tool for assessing patient reported outcomes in adult craniopharyngioma patients.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2025Article
- Robotic-like maneuverability in endoscopic endonasal surgery: clinical experience with manually operated steerable forceps.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Postoperative weight gain following endoscopic endonasal surgery for craniopharyngiomas in children and adults: A retrospective cohort study.Pituitary · 2025Article
- New insights on pharmacological potential of montelukast: a comprehensive review.Inflammopharmacology · 2025Review
- Molecular subtypes of adamantinomatous craniopharyngiomas.Neuro-oncology · 2025Review
- Endoscopic Endonasal Approach for Residual and Recurrent Craniopharyngioma after Transcranial Approach: A Multi-institutional Experience.Journal of neurological surgery. Part B, Skull base · 2025Article
- Endoscopic endonasal resection of olfactory tract hamartoma for pediatric epilepsy.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2024Review
- Advancements in Imaging and Neurosurgical Techniques for Brain Tumor Resection: A Comprehensive Review.Cureus · 2024Review
- Integrating Systemic Therapies into the Multimodality Therapy of Patients with Craniopharyngioma.Current treatment options in oncology · 2024Review
- Impact of three surgical approaches on the therapeutic efficacy of intraventricular craniopharyngiomas: a single-center retrospective analysis.Neurosurgical review · 2023Article
- The Price of Success-The Long-Term Outcomes of Children with Craniopharyngioma-Two Institutions' Experience.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The transcranial approach (TCA) has historically been used to remove craniopharyngiomas. Although the extended endoscopic endonasal approach (EEA) to these tumors has been more commonly accepted in the recent two decades, there is debate over whether this approach leads to better outcomes. The goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to more comprehensively understand the benefits and limitations of these two approaches in craniopharyngioma resection based on comparative studies. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses recommendations using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. A total of 448 articles were screened. Data were extracted and analyzed using proportional meta-analysis. Eight comparative studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. The extent of resection, visual outcomes, and postoperative complications such as endocrine dysfunction and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage were compared. Results and discussion: Eight studies, involving 376 patients, were included. Resection by EEA led to a greater rate of gross total resection (GTR) (odds ratio [OR], 2.42; p = 0.02; seven studies) with an incidence of 61.3% vs. 50.5% and a higher likelihood of visual improvement (OR, 3.22; p < 0.0001; six studies). However, TCA resulted in a higher likelihood of visual deterioration (OR, 3.68; p = 0.002; seven studies), and was related, though not significantly, to panhypopituitarism (OR, 1.39; p = 0.34; eight studies) and diabetes insipidus (OR, 1.14; p = 0.58; seven studies). Although TCA showed significantly lower likelihoods of CSF leakage (OR, 0.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.10-0.71; p = 0.008; eight studies) compared to EEA, there was no significant difference in meningitis (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.20-4.25; p = 0.91; six studies) between the two approaches. When both approaches can completely resect the tumor, EEA outperforms TCA in terms of GTR rate and visual outcomes, with favorable results in complications other than CSF leakage, such as panhypopituitarism and diabetes insipidus. Although knowledge of and competence in traditional microsurgery and endoscopic surgery are essential in surgical decision-making for craniopharyngioma treatment, when both approaches are feasible, EEA is associated with favorable surgical outcomes. Systematic review registration: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42021234801.
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.