ArticleSurgical neurology international2024
Monitoring of visual-evoked potentials during fat packing in endoscopic resection of a giant pituitary adenoma.
Article in Surgical neurology international, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery has become a mainstay surgical approach for sellar pathologies and can effectively decompress mass effects on the optic nerves. Visual-evoked potentials (VEPs) have been utilized as an intraoperative adjunct during endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery to monitor the integrity of the optic pathways, but the data surrounding its reliability and efficacy remain heterogeneous. Case Description: An 80-year-old male underwent endoscopic transsphenoidal resection of a pituitary macroadenoma with preoperative visual deficits related to optic nerve compression. During fat packing of the resection cavity, a decrease in VEPs was noted, which seemingly improved after partial fat removal, although with paradoxically reduced VEP latencies. Despite this, the patient developed a visual field deficit postoperatively, requiring re-operation for further removal of the fat packing. Conclusion: This was a case of initially poorly formed VEPs that deteriorated and apparently improved following surgical intervention. The finding of shortened latencies of the VEPs was likely from noise contamination, creating the illusion of improved signal amplitudes. We recommend careful assessment of VEP data for baseline reproducibility, particularly in patients with pre-existing visual field deficits. Appropriate anesthetic selection is also important to reduce noise interference from the electroencephalogram.
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.