Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36552145›Full record

ReviewBrain sciences2022

Endoscopic Endonasal Skull Base Surgery Complication Avoidance: A Contemporary Review.

Jose L Porras, Nicholas R Rowan, Debraj Mukherjee

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Brain sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jose L PorrasDepartment of Neurosurgery, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N Wolfe St., Phipps 124, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8664-7646
Nicholas R RowanDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 601 N Caroline St., Suite 6164, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1296-2648
Debraj MukherjeeDepartment of Neurosurgery, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N Wolfe St., Phipps 124, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA.
Johns Hopkins University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The endoscopic endonasal approach (EEA) provides a direct trajectory to ventral skull base lesions, avoidance of brain retraction, and clear visualization of cranial nerves as they exit skull base foramina. Despite these benefits, the EEA is not without complications. Here, we review published literature highlighting complications associated with the EEA including cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak, cranial nerve (CN) dysfunction, pituitary gland dysfunction, internal carotid artery (ICA) injury, infection, and others; we place special emphasis on discussing the prevention of these complications. As widespread adoption of the EEA continues, it becomes critical to educate surgeons regarding potential complications and their prevention while identifying gaps in the current literature to guide future research and advances in clinical care.

Indexed as

complicationsendoscopic endonasal approachquality-of-life

Identifiers

PMID36552145
PMCPMC9776068
OpenAlexW4311960749

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.