Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41909023›Full record

ArticleBrain & spine2026

Intraoperative visual evoked potentials and electroretinographic monitoring during endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery.

Chady Omara, Jeremi Chabros, John L Kilgallon, Kaasinath Balagurunath, Jakob Gerstl, Linda S Aglio, Charles A Riley, Carleton E Corrales, Rania A Mekary, Dinesh Nair and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Brain & spine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Chady OmaraDepartment of Neurosurgery, Computational Neurosciences Outcome Center (CNOC), Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Jeremi ChabrosDepartment of Neurosurgery, Computational Neurosciences Outcome Center (CNOC), Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
John L KilgallonDepartment of Neurosurgery, Computational Neurosciences Outcome Center (CNOC), Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Kaasinath BalagurunathDepartment of Neurosurgery, Computational Neurosciences Outcome Center (CNOC), Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Jakob GerstlDepartment of Neurosurgery, Computational Neurosciences Outcome Center (CNOC), Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Linda S AglioDepartment of Neurosurgery, Computational Neurosciences Outcome Center (CNOC), Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Charles A RileyBoston VA Healthcare System, Department of Surgery, Division of Otolaryngology, USA.
Carleton E CorralesDepartment of Otolaryngology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Rania A MekaryDepartment of Neurosurgery, Computational Neurosciences Outcome Center (CNOC), Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Dinesh NairDepartment of Neurology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Timothy R SmithDepartment of Neurosurgery, Computational Neurosciences Outcome Center (CNOC), Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Christopher S HongDepartment of Neurosurgery, Computational Neurosciences Outcome Center (CNOC), Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Continuous monitoring of visual function during endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery (ETS) may help prevent damage to the optic apparatus, but the efficacy and feasibility of measuring a visual evoked potential (VEP) remains poorly understood. Research question: What is the feasibility, safety, and clinical utility of combined VEPs and electroretinography (ERG) monitoring during ETS? Material and methods: A database of 61 patients (122 eyes) receiving ETS was analyzed. VEPs were classified as robust or non-robust at baseline, with robustness defined by a consistent VEP morphology at start of surgery. A generalized linear-mixed model (GLMM) identified predictors of VEP robustness. Intraoperative VEP changes, effects of sevoflurane anesthesia, complications, and postoperative visual outcomes were assessed. Results: Of 122 eyes, 88 had robust ERGs, of which 68/88 (77%) exhibited robust VEPs. The Oz-Cz scalp channel was the most reliable for interpreting VEPs. The GLMM revealed preoperative visual deficits significantly predicted VEP robustness ( Discussion and conclusion: VEP monitoring was feasible and safe, while providing real time-feedback that enabled corrective surgical maneuvers during critical steps. Careful patient selection and anesthesia management are essential to maximize efficacy of monitoring and potential clinical benefit.

Indexed as

ElectroretinographyIntraoperative monitoringNeuromonitoringPituitary adenomaTranssphenoidal surgeryVisual evoked potential

Identifiers

PMID41909023
PMCPMC13018866

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.