ReviewSurgical neurology international2026
The supracerebellar approach to pineal lesions: A review of history, evolution, and outcomes.
Review 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The supracerebellar approach is a well-established surgical corridor for lesions of the pineal region and dorsal midbrain. Since its original description in the early 20 Methods: This narrative review examines the historical evolution, technical modifications, and contemporary applications of supracerebellar approaches for pineal region pathology. A comprehensive synthesis of classical and modern literature was performed, with particular emphasis on anatomical considerations, operative nuances, patient positioning, and outcomes associated with microsurgical and endoscopic techniques. Results: Technical advancements, including refined patient positioning, microsurgical instrumentation, and endoscopic assistance, have improved visualization of deep midline structures and reduced operative morbidity. Endoscopic supracerebellar approaches offer minimally invasive alternatives with favorable clinical outcomes, particularly for midline lesions. However, limitations persist, including restricted access to laterally extending tumors and risks related to venous injury and positioning-related complications. Conclusion: The supracerebellar approach remains a cornerstone in the surgical management of pineal and dorsal midbrain lesions. Ongoing technical innovations, particularly the integration of endoscopic techniques and hybrid approaches, continue to expand its versatility and safety profile. Future advancements in visualization and instrumentation are likely to further refine this approach and improve outcomes for complex pineal region pathologies.
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.