ArticleNeurosurgery practice2026
Accuracy of Surgeon's Estimate of Gross Total Resection After Endoscopic Endonasal Trans-sphenoidal Surgery for Non-Hormone-Producing Pituitary Macroadenomas: Does It Matter?
Article in Neurosurgery practice, 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
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesWhile a surgeon's intraoperative assessment of gross total resection (GTR) has been used to predict recurrence in benign tumors such as meningiomas, its accuracy in pituitary adenoma surgery remains unclear. This study compares intraoperative assessment with postoperative MRI in predicting extent of resection (EOR) and recurrence in patients undergoing endoscopic endonasal resection of nonfunctioning pituitary macroadenomas.
methodsA retrospective review was performed on 327 consecutive patients with non-hormone-producing pituitary adenomas resected by a single surgeon. At the conclusion of each operation, the surgeon recorded the intraoperative assessment of EOR. All patients underwent pre- and postoperative MRI, and EOR was independently assessed by neuroradiology. Radiographic recurrence and additional treatment need were correlated with intraoperative assessment and postoperative MRI findings.
resultsIntraoperatively, the surgeon overestimated GTR rates. While intraoperative assessment GTR was reported in 90%, MRI revealed GTR in 72%. The positive predictive value of intraoperative assessment was 74% and the negative predictive value was 84%. After 40.7 months of mean follow-up, there was a 16.7% recurrence rate. Patients with intraoperative assessment GTR and subtotal resection (STR) recurred at rates of 14% and 39%, respectively. Patients with radiographic GTR and STR recurred at rates of 6% and 44%. Discordant cases with intraoperative assessment GTR and MRI STR (n = 57) recurred at 42%, indicating MRI was a more accurate recurrence predictor. Discordant cases with intraoperative assessment STR and MRI GTR (n = 6) recurred at a rate of 0%, indicating the higher accuracy of postoperative MRI. The sensitivity and specificity of intraoperative assessment for predicting recurrence were 24% and 93%, respectively. Both sensitivity and specificity of postoperative MRI for predicting recurrence were 78%.
conclusionPostoperative MRI was more accurate at establishing GTR, identifying residual tumor, and predicting recurrence compared with the surgeon's intraoperative assessment. This study supports the limited value of intraoperative EOR assessment compared with imaging.
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.