| Title |
A panoramic view of the skull base: systematic review of open and endoscopic endonasal approaches to four tumors
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Pituitary, September 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11102-013-0508-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christopher S. Graffeo, August R. Dietrich, Bartosz Grobelny, Meng Zhang, Judith D. Goldberg, John G. Golfinos, Richard Lebowitz, David Kleinberg, Dimitris G. Placantonakis |
| Abstract |
Endoscopic endonasal surgery has been established as the safest approach to pituitary tumors, yet its role in other common skull base lesions has not been established. To answer this question, we carried out a systematic review of reported series of open and endoscopic endonasal approaches to four major skull base tumors: olfactory groove meningiomas (OGM), tuberculum sellae meningiomas (TSM), craniopharyngiomas (CRA), and clival chordomas (CHO). Data from 162 studies containing 5,701 patients were combined and compared for differences in perioperative mortality, gross total resection (GTR), cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak, neurological morbidity, post-operative visual function, post-operative anosmia, post-operative diabetes insipidus (DI), and post-operative obesity/hyperphagia. Weighted average rates for each outcome were calculated using relative study size. Our findings indicate similar rates of GTR and perioperative mortality between open and endoscopic approaches for all tumor types. CSF leak was increased after endoscopic surgery. Visual function symptoms were more likely to improve after endoscopic surgery for TSM, CRA, and CHO. Post-operative DI and obesity/hyperphagia were significantly increased after open resection in CRA. Recurrence rates per 1,000 patient-years of follow-up were higher in endoscopy for OGM, TSM, and CHO. Trends for open and endoscopic surgery suggested modest improvement in all outcomes over time. Our observations suggest that endonasal endoscopy is a safe alternative to craniotomy and may be preferred for certain tumor types. However, endoscopic surgery is associated with higher rates of CSF leak, and possibly increased recurrence rates. Prospective study with long-term follow-up is required to verify these preliminary observations. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 74 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 11 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 15% |
| Other | 7 | 9% |
| Researcher | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 14 | 19% |
| Unknown | 18 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 35 | 47% |
| Neuroscience | 8 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 1% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 3 | 4% |
| Unknown | 24 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 March 2021.
All research outputs
#7,454,951
of 22,790,780 outputs
Outputs from Pituitary
#140
of 491 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,385
of 197,674 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pituitary
#3
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,790,780 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 491 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 197,674 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.