ArticleNeurosurgical review2026
Outpatient supratentorial craniotomy for brain lesions: a pilot feasibility and safety 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This single-center pilot study evaluated the feasibility, safety, and patient acceptability of fully ambulatory, home-to-home supratentorial craniotomy for intracerebral lesion resection in a European academic setting. All consecutive adults scheduled between January 2024 and July 2025 for outpatient non-emergent supratentorial craniotomy under general anesthesia for brain lesion resection were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were selected preoperatively according to predefined clinical, anesthetic, and social criteria and managed within a standardized Enhanced Recovery After Surgery–oriented pathway including morning scheduling, systematic early postoperative imaging, and structured telemedicine follow-up. Primary endpoints were failure of same-day discharge, surgery-related complications within 30 days, and unplanned hospital admission or consultation. Patient-reported satisfaction with ambulatory management was assessed by questionnaire. Among 606 supratentorial brain lesion resections performed during the study period, 40 (6.6%) were managed in a fully ambulatory setting. Same-day discharge was achieved in 39/40 procedures (97.5%); the single failure was related to metabolic decompensation of pre-existing diabetes. Within 30 days, 5/40 procedures (12.5%) were associated with postoperative complications: 3 transient neurological worsenings not requiring specific treatment (grade 1), 1 metabolic complication requiring overnight monitoring (grade 2), and 1 Guillain–Barré syndrome with persistent deficit (grade 3). The latter two were medical postoperative events not directly caused by the neurosurgical procedure itself. One patient (2.5%) required unplanned rehospitalization. No postoperative hematoma, seizure requiring emergent intervention, or death occurred. Among successfully managed outpatients, 97.2% reported being satisfied or very satisfied with ambulatory care, and 91.7% would choose the same pathway again. Fully ambulatory, home-to-home supratentorial craniotomy for intracerebral lesion resection is feasible and appears safe in a carefully selected European cohort, with high patient satisfaction. Although ambulatory cases still represent a small fraction of real-world brain tumor surgery, structured implementation of such pathways may help address current constraints on hospital beds and operating room capacity, while maintaining low complication and readmission rates, reducing overall costs, and improving patient-centered outcomes. Larger, multicenter studies in broader, real-world populations are warranted to refine selection criteria, quantify clinical and economic impact, and support wider adoption of ambulatory neurosurgery in routine practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41964718What 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.