ArticleJournal of neurosurgery. Case lessons2026
Nuances in the management of cerebellopontine angle ependymomas: illustrative case.
Article in Journal of neurosurgery. Case lessons, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEpendymomas are one of the most common pediatric brain tumors. Cerebellopontine angle ependymomas (CPAEs) are a subset of ependymomas that pose unique surgical challenges due to their location and relationship to surrounding neurovasculature, and they are poorly documented in the current literature. This report discusses the unique tenets of these lesions and their implications for successful management. An illustrative case is presented. OBSERVATIONS: A 15-month-old male was found to have a 2021 classification WHO grade 2 ependymoma extending from the fourth ventricle into the cerebellopontine angle. The mass encased cranial nerves V, VII, VIII, IX, X, and XII and both vertebral arteries, and exerted mass effect on the brainstem. The patient underwent staged resections, and gross-total resection (GTR) was achieved. Post-GTR, adjuvant proton therapy was initiated. Postoperative cranial nerve deficits showed partial to full recovery at the 1-year follow-up. Imaging has shown no residual tumor or tumor recurrence. LESSONS: This experience highlights the success of multiple staged resections to maximize resection while preserving as much neurological functional as possible, but many strategies may be used on a case-by-case basis. This case contributes insight to a poorly documented subset of pediatric ependymomas, reinforcing the need for broader reporting of CPAE to guide future management. https://thejns.org/doi/10.3171/CASE25687.
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.