SynthesisBMC surgery2026
Comparative surgical outcomes of pterional, supraorbital, and endoscopic endonasal approaches for tuberculum sellae meningiomas: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC surgery, 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
backgroundThe optimal surgical corridor for tuberculum sellae meningiomas (TSMs) remains a subject of ongoing debate. While the pterional (PT) approach is the traditional gold standard, the endoscopic endonasal approach (EEA) and supraorbital (SO) keyhole approach have emerged as viable alternatives.
objectiveTo comparatively evaluate the surgical outcomes and complication profiles of the PT, SO, and EEA techniques for the management of TSMs.
methodsA systematic literature search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases through March 2026. Frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis was performed to compare gross total resection (GTR), visual improvement, and complications. Treatment rankings were estimated using Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking Curve (SUCRA) scores.
resultsSix retrospective comparative studies involving 205 patients were included. Network meta-analysis showed no statistically significant differences between approaches for gross total resection (PT vs. EEA: RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.85-1.73; SO vs. EEA: RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.86-1.24). SUCRA rankings suggested only exploratory numerical patterns, with PT ranking highest for GTR and SO showing a non-significant trend for visual improvement compared with EEA (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.95-1.76). These rankings were not supported by statistically significant pairwise differences and should be interpreted cautiously because of sparse evidence, retrospective study designs, and wide confidence or prediction intervals. Secondary outcomes, including cerebrospinal fluid leak, diabetes insipidus, and tumor recurrence, were imprecisely estimated and broadly comparable across approaches.
conclusionAvailable retrospective comparative evidence suggests that pterional, supraorbital, and endoscopic endonasal approaches may provide broadly comparable outcomes for TSMs, but the certainty of evidence is limited. No approach demonstrated statistically significant superiority. Surgical corridor selection should remain individualized according to tumor anatomy, including lateral extension, vascular encasement, and optic canal involvement, as well as institutional expertise and surgeon experience.
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.