SynthesisNeurosurgical review2026
Outcomes of endoscopic and microscopic transsphenoidal pituitary surgery: evidence from a systematic review, meta-analysis, and institutional experience.
Synthesis 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To compare surgical outcomes between endoscopic and microscopic transsphenoidal pituitary surgery using international comparative evidence and an institutional cohort. A PRISMA-based systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative transsphenoidal pituitary surgery studies was performed. Gross total resection was the primary endpoint. Secondary outcomes included operative time, intraoperative blood loss, cerebrospinal fluid leak, epistaxis, meningitis, diabetes insipidus, SIADH, and visual outcomes. Fixed- and random-effects models were applied. Fifty-six comparative studies including 26,295 patients from 23 countries were analyzed (13,575 endoscopic, 12,534 microscopic), supplemented by an institutional cohort of 142 patients. Endoscopic surgery was associated with higher gross total resection rates (random-effects RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.02-1.15). Operative time did not differ significantly between techniques (random-effects MD + 3.57 min, 95% CI - 17.25 to 24.40). Intraoperative blood loss was higher in endoscopic surgery (MD 44.0 mL, 95% CI 0.94-87.08). Rates of cerebrospinal fluid leak, epistaxis, meningitis, transient and permanent diabetes insipidus, SIADH, and postoperative visual deterioration or improvement were comparable between approaches. Both techniques demonstrate comparable perioperative safety, while endoscopic surgery seems to be associated with higher resection rates overall.
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.