Trial reportFrontiers in endocrinology2025
Comparison of endoscopic and endoscope-assisted microscopic transsphenoidal surgery for pituitary adenoma resection: a prospective randomized study.
Trial report in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The value of endoscopic versus microsurgical approach has not yet been defined in transsphenoidal pituitary adenoma surgery. In this study, we compare both methods and analyze the long-term surgical, radiological, endocrinological, ophthalmological, and rhinological results as well as the patients' quality of life. Methods: A total of 33 individuals with elective transsphenoidal pituitary adenoma surgery were randomized (pure endoscopic approach or endoscope-assisted microscopic approach) and prospectively underwent investigations with a focus on patient-related subjective outcome measurements. Results: The mean follow-up period was 6.3 years. In the microsurgical group, endoscopic inspection revealed residual tumor in seven of 15 patients (46.7%) not seen by the microscope. Endoscopic resection provided long-term tumor-free state in all of them. Compared to pure microsurgical treatment, endoscopy was associated with a lower probability of tumor recurrence (OR = 0.24) and appeared advantageous in the long-term achievement of any surgical goal (OR = 3.80) as well as in anterior pituitary lobe function improvement (OR = 1.60). Where gross total tumor resection was the stated preoperative goal, there was no long-term tumor recurrence in 81.8% (endoscopy group) and 83.3% (endoscope-assisted microsurgical group). Most aspects showed no significant difference between the techniques, such as length of hospital stay, complication rate (endoscopy: 16.7%, endoscope-assisted microsurgery: 20.0%), long-term maintenance of any preoperatively stated extent of resection, pituitary and olfactory function, rates of DI and SIADH, ophthalmological improvement, and SNOT scores. Conclusions: Both techniques provide good long-term surgical, radiological, endocrinological, rhinological, and ophthalmological results. Endoscopy clearly improved the rate of long-term achievement of the initial surgical goal and the anterior pituitary lobe function.
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.