ArticleNeurosurgical review2026
Modified tubular retractor for deep brain tumour resection: enhanced surgical outcomes in resource-constrained settings.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Tubular retractors permit minimally invasive access to deep-seated intracranial tumours; however, limitations in visualisation and manoeuvrability reduce their suitability for lesions ≥ 3 cm, particularly in resource-limited centres. We evaluated a modified, low-cost tubular retractor incorporating enhanced visualisation and ergonomic features, comparing its performance with Leyla spatula-based retraction and traditional syringe-derived tubular systems. A prospective comparative cohort of 105 patients with deep brain tumours ≥ 3 cm was analysed. Patients underwent Leyla retraction (Group 1, n = 38), conventional tubular systems (Group 2, n = 32), or a modified tubular retractor (Group 3, n = 35). Outcomes included intraoperative visualisation, retractor stability, manoeuvrability, extent of resection, complications, and three-month Glasgow Outcome Scores. Owing to non-normal distribution, continuous variables were analysed using non-parametric tests and binary logistic regression. The modified tubular retractor demonstrated greater stability, broader visualisation, and enhanced instrument handling compared with conventional tubular systems. Gross total resection was achieved in 91.4% with the modified device, 78.9% with Leyla-based retraction, and 28.9% with traditional tubular systems. Logistic modelling identified retractor type (OR 2.59, p = 0.035), intraoperative visualisation (OR 2.01, p = 0.036), and histopathology (OR 1.41, p = 0.036) as independent predictors of residual tumour. The modified retractor group exhibited fewer complications, shorter ICU stays, and superior functional outcomes (GOS ≥ 4 in 91%). The modified tubular retractor demonstrated favourable operative handling and outcome trends for deep-seated tumours ≥ 3 cm, with improved visualisation, stability, and ergonomic access compared with conventional systems. However, limitations related to non-randomised design, learning-curve effects, advanced mapping, fluorescence integration, and supramaximal resection warrant cautious interpretation pending multicentre long-term validation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42204019What 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.