ArticleOTO open
Anatomical Feature of Nasal Cavity for Endoscopic Endonasal Skull Base Surgery in Patients With GHoma.
Article in OTO open. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Endoscopic endonasal skull base surgery (EESS) is widely performed for pituitary tumors. In growth hormone-secreting adenomas (GHomas), the procedure is technically more demanding than for other pituitary neuroendocrine tumor (PitNET) subtypes due to restricted instrument maneuverability. Few studies have evaluated the influence of nasal cavity morphology on this difficulty. Objective: To identify anatomical factors contributing to the technical challenges of EESS for GHomas by comparing nasal cavity structures between GHoma and non-GHoma PitNET patients. Study Design: Retrospective chart review. Setting: Tertiary referral center with a collaborative skull base team of neurosurgery and otolaryngology. Methods: Computed tomography (CT) images of 28 GHoma and 104 non-GHoma PitNET patients who underwent EESS between August 2018 and April 2024 were analyzed. Measurements included inter-vidian canal distance, nasolacrimal duct opening width, inferior turbinate width, piriform aperture width, sphenopalatine foramen width, inter-carotid artery distance, skull base-to-hard palate distance, anterior nasal spine-to-clivus distance, and anterior sphenoid wall-to-clivus distance. Comparisons were performed using Student's Results: GHoma patients showed significantly greater nasolacrimal duct opening width, piriform aperture width, and anterior nasal spine-to-clivus distance ( Conclusion: GHoma patients possess generally larger sinonasal dimensions, yet a narrower paraclival inter-carotid space limit surgical maneuverability. These CT-based anatomical differences may have potential implications for preoperative anatomical assessment in patients with GHomas. Level of Evidence: IV.
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.