ArticleNeurosurgical review2025
Diffusion changes in minimally invasive parafascicular approach for deep-seated tumours: impact on clinical outcomes.
Article in Neurosurgical review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
24 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Minimally invasive parafascicular surgery (MIPS) with the use of tubular retractors achieve a safe resection in deep seated tumours. Diffusion changes noted on postoperative imaging; the significance and clinical correlation of this remains poorly understood. Single centre retrospective cohort study of neuro-oncology patients undergoing MIPS. The impact of surgical approach-transsulcal (TS) versus transgyral (TG) - and respective entry points in clinical and imaging outcomes was assessed. 82 patients (35 male; 47 female, average age 43.94 ± 22.85 years) were included. 84% presented with neurological deficit and glioblastoma was the commonest diagnosis (38.24%). Surgical approach was not relevant for the number of patients that showed postoperative peritubular injury (TS: 20 (37.74%) versus TG: 8 (27.59%), p = 0.354) or its volume (TS: 0.95 ± 1.82 cc versus TG: 0.43 ± 1.32 cc, p = 0.1435). When adjusted for preoperative volume and depth of tumour, TS approach was associated with less diffusion restriction (p = 0.030). Temporal lobe access points had the highest volume of diffusion restriction (temporal lobe-2.50 ± 3.54 cc versus frontal lobe - 1.15 ± 1.53 versus parietal lobe-0.51 ± 0.91 cc, p = 0.0096), particularly in the TS approach (p = 0.0152). Superior motor outcomes were demonstrated in the TS versus the TG approach (postoperative improvement: TS: 14.63% versus TG: 6.9%, p = 0.015), especially for parietal approaches (p = 0.039). TS approach was related with a significantly decreased length of stay (TS-11.67 ± 14.19 days versus TG - 23.97 ± 18.01 days, p = 0.001). Transsulcal approach demonstrated a better motor outcome profile, particularly in parietal lobe, and shorter length of stay. The superior temporal sulcus was more susceptible to ischaemic changes. Therefore, transgyral route can be considered in temporal lobe MIPS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39826028What 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.