ArticleNeurosurgical review2025
Optimizing dural opening and closure in endonasal transsphenoidal surgery: Technical considerations for incision design and clinical utility.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rigid sellar floor reconstruction in transsphenoidal surgery: prevention of cerebrospinal fluid leakage attributable to the water-hammer effect.Neurosurgical review · 2026Article
- Article
- Pregnancy and delivery after surgical remission in women with prolactinomas desiring pregnancy: Refining surgical indications.Pituitary · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Dural opening and closure represent a crucial yet under-discussed aspect of transsphenoidal surgery (TSS), where the operative field is narrow and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage remains a significant complication. In 2010, we abandoned the conventional cruciate dural incision and began developing optimized designs that provide wide exposure, minimal interference, and facilitate watertight closure. After investigating various incision types, we empirically established a modified H-shaped dural incision in 2011. This design minimizes the interdural gap, enabling effective dural flap tenting and suturing, and has since become our standard dural incision in TSS. Planar geometrical analysis further supported this design as optimal, demonstrating that it requires the shortest total incision length among the evaluated techniques. Additionally, a combined Y and upside-down T-shaped incision proved effective for extended TSS, while sideways Y-shaped and straight incisions were advantageous in cases where a large dural window was unnecessary. Between 2011 and 2022, we applied tailored dural incisions in 628 endonasal TSS, with selection based on tumor type, location, and extent. The modified H-shaped incision was the most commonly used (61.0%), particularly in midline non-functioning pituitary neuroendocrine tumors. Compared with the cruciate incision, it reduced the total incision length and did not increase the postoperative CSF leakage rate (1.91%, vs. 0.48%, p = 0.019). Our findings suggest that strategic selection of dural incision designs, combined with primary dural suturing, improves intraoperative handling and reduces postoperative complications. These results highlight the need to re-evaluate traditional dural opening techniques in the era of high-definition endoscopic and extended TSS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40848179What 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.