ArticleNeurosurgical review2026
Endonasal endoscopic surgery for residual or recurrent craniopharyngiomas: A propensity score-matched cohort study.
Article in Neurosurgical review, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Craniopharyngiomas (CPs) frequently recur even after gross total resection (GTR), posing substantial challenges to long-term disease control. Endoscopic endonasal surgery (EES) has become a widely adopted approach for CPs, yet its efficacy for recurrent or residual lesions remains controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of repeat EES for recurrent or residual CPs by comparing surgical, functional, and long-term outcomes with those of primary EES. We retrospectively reviewed CP patients who underwent EES at our center between June 2012 and December 2024. Patients were categorized into primary and repeat EES groups. Baseline characteristics, surgical outcomes, perioperative complications, and long-term results were compared. To reduce potential confounding, a 1:2 propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis was performed based on key clinical covariates. Before matching, 213 patients were included; after PSM, 92 patients underwent primary EES and 46 underwent repeat EES. Compared with primary EES, repeat EES was associated with a significantly lower GTR rate (87.0% vs. 96.7%, p = 0.04) and higher recurrence rate (7.0% vs. 0.0%, p = 0.03). Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated shorter recurrence-free survival in the repeat group. Among patients with preoperative visual impairment, visual improvement was less frequent in the repeat group (48.5% vs. 71.9%, p = 0.02). Rates of visual deterioration, new visual deficits, perioperative complications, and endocrinological outcomes did not differ significantly between groups. Compared with primary EES, repeat EES for recurrent or residual CPs yields lower GTR rates and higher recurrence rates, while achieving comparable visual, endocrinological, and complication profiles. These findings suggest that, despite reduced resection rates, repeat EES remains a viable and safe therapeutic option for selected patients with recurrent or residual CPs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41586852What 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.