ArticleSurgical neurology international2026
Foreign body granuloma mimicking pituitary adenoma: Case report and literature review.
Article in Surgical neurology international, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Foreign body granuloma of the pituitary gland is an exceptionally rare inflammatory lesion that may mimic recurrent adenoma on neuroimaging. Case Description: We report the case of a 44-year-old woman who previously underwent endonasal endoscopic surgery for a nonfunctioning pituitary adenoma and later developed a sellar mass secondary to a foreign body granulomatous reaction. Magnetic resonance imaging suggested tumor recurrence; however, gadolinium-enhanced imaging was not performed because of the patient's known gadolinium allergy. Histopathological examination revealed xanthogranulomatous inflammation and a multinucleated giant-cell reaction to the suture material, without evidence of neoplastic recurrence. Conclusion: This case highlights the diagnostic challenges associated with postoperative sellar lesions and emphasizes the importance of histopathological confirmation in distinguishing foreign body granulomas from recurrent pituitary adenomas.
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.