ReviewSurgical neurology international2024
Comparing redo surgery and stereotactic radiosurgery for recurrent, residual, and/or tumors showing progression in nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Surgical neurology international, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Stereotactic radiosurgery for recurrent/residual nonfunctioning pituitary adenoma: a single-arm systematic review and meta-analysis.Acta neurochirurgica · 2024Pooled it
- Endoscopic endonasal approach for recurrent or residual pituitary neuroendocrine tumors.Neurosurgical review · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Non-functioning pituitary adenomas (NFPAs) are well-differentiated benign tumors originating from the adenohypophyseal cells of the pituitary gland. They present with headaches, visual disorders, or cranial nerve deficits. NFPAs can recur, progress, or present as residual tumors. We, therefore, conducted this review to compare the effects of both revision surgery and stereotactic surgery on tumor size, visual status, endocrine status, and complications. Methods: A systematic review of published literature on recurrent, residual, or progressing NFPAs that underwent redo surgery or stereotactic radiosurgery from the inception till June 2020 was conducted as per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Thirteen records (1209 patients) were included, and risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) estimated from each study were pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis model. Results: Redo surgery was the preferred intervention in patients presenting with larger tumor sizes and was more effective in reducing the tumor size as compared to stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) (risk ratio [RR] 56.14; 95% CI, 16.45-191.58). There was more visual loss with revision surgery as compared to SRS (risk ratio [RR] 0.08; 95% CI, 0.03-0.20). However, SRS was associated with fewer complications, such as new diabetes insipidus, as compared to the redo surgery (risk ratio [RR] 0.01; 95% CI 0.01-0.03). Conclusion: Redo surgery is the superior choice in the treatment of recurrent/residual or progressing NFPAs if the tumor size is large and an immediate reduction in tumor burden through debulking is warranted. However, redo surgery is associated with a higher risk of visual loss, new endocrinopathies, and other complications, in contrast to SRS.
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.