Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39287804›Full record

ReviewAdvances and technical standards in neurosurgery2024

Endoneurosurgical Resection of Parenchymal and Intraventricular Lesions Using Tubular Retraction System.

Suresh K Sankhla, Anshu Warade, G M Khan

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Advances and technical standards in neurosurgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Suresh K SankhlaGlobal Gleneagle Hospital, Mumbai, India.
Anshu WaradeGlobal Gleneagle Hospital, Mumbai, India.
G M KhanGlobal Gleneagle Hospital, Mumbai, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveEndoscopic surgery has emerged in the recent years as an alternative to the conventional microsurgical approaches for removal of the deep-seated brain and intraventricular tumors. Endoport has enhanced the tumor access and visualization without any significant brain retraction. In this chapter, we describe the surgical technique of the endoscopic excision of the deep-seated intra-axial brain tumors using tubular retraction system with review of the literature.

methodsThe endoscopic endoport technique that we use at our institution for the surgical management of intraventricular and intraparenchymal brain tumors has been described in details with illustrations.

resultsResults from the literature review of brain parenchymal and intraventricular port surgery were analyzed, and the feasibility and safety of this technique were discussed. Surgical complication avoidance and management were highlighted. The port technique offers numerous potential advantages, including: (1) reducing focal brain injury by distributing retraction forces homogenously; (2) minimizing white matter disruption and the risk of fascicles injury during cannulation; (3) ensuring stability of the surgical corridor during the procedure; (4) preventing inadvertent expansion of the corticectomy and white fiber tract dissection throughout surgery; (5) protecting the surrounding tissues against iatrogenic injuries caused by instrument entry and reentry.

conclusionThe endoport-assisted endoscopic technique is a safe and minimally invasive method that offers an effective alternative option for resection of intraventricular and parenchymal brain lesions. Excellent outcome comparable to other surgical approaches can be achieved with acceptable complications.

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsCerebral Ventricle NeoplasmsNeuroendoscopyHumansDeep-brain lesions, IntraventricularEndoport-assistedNeuroendoscope

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.