ArticleCureus2026
Clinical Outcomes in Trans-sphenoidal Surgery for Pituitary Neuroendocrine Tumour in Sarawak General Hospital, Malaysia: Microscopic Versus Endoscopic Approach.
Article in Cureus, 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
purposeTrans-sphenoidal surgery is the standard approach to provide direct access to pituitary neuroendocrine tumours (PitNET). Reported outcomes for trans-sphenoidal surgical resection of PitNET were heterogeneous. This work aimed to develop local data for the outcomes of trans-sphenoidal surgery, either via a microscopic or endoscopic approach.
methodsWe performed a retrospective review of patients with PitNET treated by trans-sphenoidal surgery at Sarawak General Hospital from 2014-2021. We included only cases treated by the senior author (AWSH) to avoid inter-surgeon variability. Demographic, clinical, radiologic, operative, and postoperative outcome data were analysed.
resultsThere were 60 patients, with 35 patients in the microscopic group and 25 in the endoscopic group. The baseline characteristics were comparable. The rate of gross total resection was similar (34.4% vs 44.0%, p=0.459) in both approaches. The endoscopic approach was observed to have a higher proportion of patients with arachnoid breach than the microscopic approach (p=0.010). However, the endoscopic approach had a significantly higher proportion of patients with improved anterior pituitary gland function than the microscopic approach (p=0.006). There was low morbidity, with a meningitis risk of 2.9% in the microscopic approach vs. 4.0% in the endoscopic approach (p>0.950). There was no mortality observed in our study. During follow-up, we found that 83% of patients with residual volume remained radiologically stable and clinically asymptomatic and did not require a second surgery.
conclusionOur study showed that trans-sphenoidal surgery, either with a microscopic or endoscopic approach, was safe for the resection of PitNET. The endoscopic approach has a better outcome in anterior pituitary function improvement. There was no difference in the extent of resection and visual improvement. Postoperative meningitis risk was equally low, and there was no mortality in our transsphenoidal series.
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.