ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Neurophysiological monitoring of cranial nerves III and VI in endoscopic skull base surgery: scoping review and comparative study.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM) of extraocular cranial nerves (EOCN) during skull base surgery has expanded to reduce post-operative neurological deficits. However, multiple techniques exist, and comparative evidence supporting their routine use in endoscopic endonasal approaches (EEA) remains limited. The aim of the study is to evaluate the reliability, signal quality, and safety of different IONM techniques for CN III and VI during EEA, integrating a scoping literature review with a single surgeon's clinical experience. Methods: A scoping review identified studies reporting EOCN monitoring during EEA. In parallel, a retrospective analysis was conducted in patients undergoing extended EEA with multimodal IONM. Monitoring modalities included free-run electromyography (fEMG), triggered electromyography (tEMG), electrooculography (EOG), and corticobulbar motor evoked potentials (CbMEPs). Direct muscle recordings were obtained using hook-wire electrodes or modified 90°-bent subdermal needle electrodes, while indirect monitoring relied on EOG. Signal quality, reproducibility, feasibility, and procedure-related complications were assessed. Results: Eleven studies involving 476 patients were included in the scoping review. In the clinical series, 51 patients underwent multimodal IONM. Direct EMG recordings provided stable and specific signals, whereas EOG showed a high artefactual component, limiting reliable nerve identification. CbMEPs yielded clear and reproducible responses in selected cases. Modified 90° bent dual subdermal needle electrode demonstrated superior signal quality and low impedance compared with hook-wire electrodes, which were associated with a higher rate of minor complications. Discussion: Multimodal IONM combining CbMEPs, tEMG, and fEMG is feasible and effective during EEA. Modified 90° bent dual subdermal needle electrode appear to offer the most reliable and safe monitoring strategy for EOCN.
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.