ReviewCancers2026
Endoscopic Endonasal Approaches to Anterior Cranial Base Meningiomas: Indications, Limitations, and Surgical Decision-Making.
Review in Cancers, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Endoscopic endonasal surgery (EES) has fundamentally changed the management of anterior skull base meningiomas by enabling access to many lesions through a direct minimally invasive corridor that avoids traditional transcranial exposure. Improvements in endoscopic optical technology, surgical instrumentation, and skull base reconstruction have steadily expanded the range of tumors that can be treated through an endonasal approach. Even so, EES is not appropriate for every lesion, making thoughtful patient selection and surgical team experience the most important determinants of surgical success. This review explores where EES fits in the contemporary management of anterior skull base meningiomas, including olfactory groove, tuberculum sellae, and planum sphenoidale meningiomas, with particular attention to its indications, limitations, and situations in which EES may not be appropriate. Evidence comparing endoscopic endonasal and transcranial approaches for anterior skull base meningiomas is reviewed, with attention to how tumor anatomy, oncologic objectives, and individual patient characteristics influence the choice of approach. A major consideration is how surgical morbidity can be minimized without compromising oncologic and safety outcomes. Current strategies to protect critical neurovascular structures, reduce the risk of cerebrospinal fluid leakage, and improve skull base durability, including advances in vascularized reconstruction techniques, are discussed. Emerging outcome data and the evolving learning curve associated with EES are also reviewed. Rather than presenting EES as a universal solution, the evidence points toward a patient-centered approach in which operative strategy and clinical decision making is guided by tumor characteristics, anatomy, and surgical goals.
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.