ArticleBrain & spine2025
Revisiting the Endoscopic vs. Microscopic colloid cysts resection battle with emphasis on endoscope assisted technique.
Article in Brain & spine, 2025. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Colloid cysts are challenging regarding their location. Surgical resection remains the therapeutic option of choice for symptomatic cysts. However, choosing the optimal surgical approach is still a subject of debate. Research question: The aim of the study is to compare three surgical approaches; Pure endoscopic (PE), pure microscopic (PM) and endoscope assisted microsurgical (EA). Material and methods: Retrospective data extraction from our database was done and we included patients who underwent surgical resection for colloid cysts since 2008. Patients were categorized into three groups based on the forementioned surgical techniques. Outcome measures assessed included extent of resection (EOR), morbidity using modified Rankin Scale (mRS), hospital stay duration (HSD), and complications. Results: 41 patients met our inclusion criteria and were divided as follows; PM 13 patients (31.7%), PE 19 patients (46.3%) and EA with 9 patients (22.0%). Mean age (SD) was 37.4 ± 12.2. Male: Female is 1:1.05 and average follow-up was 3.9 ± 2.8 years. Gross total resection(GTR) reached 92.3% (12/13) using PM, 78.9% (15/19) with PE and 100% (9/9) under EA. Morbidity was 15.4%, 10.5% and 0% respectively (mRS >2). Hospital stay duration was significantly shorter in PE and EA (p = 0.012). Discussion and conclusion: EA excision of colloid cysts is safe and effective. When compared to PE and PM approaches, it can combine the advantages of both tools utilizing the microscope and endoscope to achieve a safe, gross total resection while minimizing hospitalization duration. The choice of surgical approach, however, should be individualized based on the cyst's location, size, and the surgeon's expertise and preference.
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.