ArticleNeurosurgical review2026
Endoscopic endonasal approach for recurrent or residual pituitary neuroendocrine tumors.
Article 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveEndoscopic endonasal surgery (EES) for recurrent or residual pituitary neuroendocrine tumors (rrPitNETs), particularly those involving multiple anatomical corridors, remains clinically challenging. This study evaluates the efficacy of endoscopic endonasal surgery for rrPitNETs in terms of gross total resection (GTR) rates and complications, and identifies independent predictors of resection outcomes, to provide a reference for patient selection, intraoperative decision‑making, and perioperative management.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 152 patients with rrPitNETs undergoing EES at our institution from June 2016 to June 2024 with a median follow-up of 36 months (range, 12-96). Data included prior surgical history, clinical presentations, intraoperative techniques, perioperative complications, and long-term outcomes. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were applied to determine factors influencing GTR.
resultsThe patient cohort comprised 101 patients with one prior surgery (66.4%), 32 with two (21.1%), and 19 with three or more (12.5%). GTR was achieved in 105 patients (69.1%). Preoperative visual field defects improved in 74 of 102 patients (72.5%). Postoperative complications included new hypopituitarism in 12 patients (7.9%), permanent diabetes insipidus (DI) in 2 patients (1.3%), transient DI in 15 patients (9.9%), all resolved before discharge, delayed cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak in 2 patients (1.3%), managed by lumbar drainage, transient cranial nerve palsy in 13 patients (8.6%), and intracranial infection in 5 patients (3.3%), controlled with antibiotics. Multivariate analysis (separate models for tumor diameter and volume) showed that Knosp grade 3-4 had a very strong association with incomplete resection (both models, OR > 86, p < 0.001).
conclusionsIn this selected cohort of rrPitNET patients suitable for repeat EES after structured preoperative evaluation, we observed a GTR rate of 69.1% and a major complication rate of a low major complication rate. Knosp grade 3-4 showed a very strong association with incomplete resection, although the magnitude of this effect is imprecise due to sparse data. This finding suggests that GTR is more difficult to achieve in such cases, underscoring the need for advanced preoperative planning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42758384What 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.