ArticleTranslational pediatrics2025
Endoscopic versus open resection of pediatric periorbital masses using a novel subcutaneous operative channel: a focus on safety and aesthetic outcomes.
Article in Translational pediatrics, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The periorbital region is one of the most prominent areas for social interaction. Conventional open surgeries in this area often leave scars or cause aesthetic and functional issues owing to tissue tension. Endoscopic methods are increasingly being applied to unconventional surgical approaches in pediatric surgery. This study aimed to introduce a method of resecting pediatric periorbital masses using endoscopic assistance with hidden incisions within the hairline and to compare its outcomes with those of conventional open surgeries. Methods: Clinical data were collected from 46 pediatric patients diagnosed with "periorbital masses" who underwent mass resection surgery in the Department of Neurosurgery, Beijing Children's Hospital, Capital Medical University, between August 31, 2023, and September 1, 2024. The data collected included sex, age, surgery and hospitalization duration, mass size, postoperative pathology results, and total hospitalization costs. Postoperative follow-up data included the presence of complications, recurrence, and adoption of anti-scar treatment measures. Statistical analysis and visualization were performed using SPSS 22.0 and GraphPad Prism 10, with statistical significance set at P<0.05. Results: A total of 46 children diagnosed with periorbital masses were included in the study, consisting of 30 males and 16 females, aged 0-14 years (median age: 3 years). The median age of patients undergoing conventional open surgery was 4 years (1-6 years), while the median age of those receiving endoscopic-assisted surgery was 1 year (1-3 years), with the latter being significantly younger. No statistically significant differences were found between the two surgical approaches in terms of mass size, hospitalization duration, average hospitalization costs, nor postoperative complication rates. However, the average surgical duration was significantly longer with the new technique. No recurrence was observed in any patient during the follow-up period. Notably, none of the 17 patients who underwent the new surgical technique required postoperative anti-scar treatment, compared to the higher rate of anti-scar treatment in the conventional surgery group. Conclusions: Endoscopic resection of pediatric periorbital masses using a novel subcutaneous operative channel is a minimally invasive, safe, effective, cost-effective, and yields superior cosmetic outcomes, presenting a promising clinical application.
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.