ArticleChinese neurosurgical journal2025
Giant and irregular pituitary neuroendocrine tumors surgery: comparison of simultaneous combined endoscopic endonasal and transcranial and purely endoscopic endonasal surgery at a single center.
Article in Chinese neurosurgical journal, 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.
- [Skull base surgery-where do we stand?]HNO · 2025Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSurgical management of giant and irregular pituitary neuroendocrine tumors (GIPitNETs) presents a significant challenge in neurosurgery. While endoscopic endonasal surgery (EES) is a widely used approach for PitNETs, GIPitNETs with extensive intracranial extension pose challenges for purely EES. We use simultaneous combined endoscopic endonasal and transcranial surgery (CECS) for the treatment of this type of tumor. Currently, there is limited research comparing CECS to EES for GIPitNETs. This study aims to compare the efficacy and short outcome of CECS and purely EES in the management of GIPitNETs to better understand the advantages and limitations of each surgical approach.
methodsThe data of GIPitNETs patients who underwent surgery between March 2018 and May 2023 at a single center were retrospectively reviewed. All included cases were divided into CECS and EES groups according to the treatment modality received. The baseline characteristics and tumor imaging features of patients were compared between the groups, as well as surgical results, perioperative complications, and last follow-up outcomes.
resultsA total of 50 patients met the inclusion criteria, with 27 undergoing CECS and 23 EES. CECS achieved a significantly higher GTR rate compared to EES (66.7% vs. 13.0%, p < 0.0001). CECS had longer operation times and hospital stays, but both approaches had similar rates of complications, including intracranial infection, CSF leakage, new pituitary dysfunction, postoperative diabetes insipidus, and vascular infarction. CECS reduces the risk of postoperative bleeding. Tumor recurrence and reoperation were significantly more common in the EES group.
conclusionsCECS is a safe and effective surgical approach for GIPitNETs, leading to higher rates of GTR, comparable complication rates, and reduced risk of postoperative bleeding when compared to purely EES. EES was associated with more tumor recurrence. Further long-term follow-up data is needed to validate these findings.
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.