For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
0
views
23
references
 Top references
cited by
1
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      368
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The learning curve for endoscopic endonasal pituitary surgery: a systematic review

      review-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Recent literature demonstrates that a learning curve exists for endoscopic pituitary surgery. However, there is significant variability in the way these studies report their outcomes. This study aims to systematically review the literature regarding outcomes for endoscopic pituitary surgery and how this may be related to a surgical learning curve. An electronic search of the databases Medline, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases was performed and data extracted according 2020 Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Ten articles were included in the review as they examined the following: rates of gross total resection, average operative time, CSF leak rate, visual outcomes, endocrine outcomes and how these results were influenced by surgical experience. We have demonstrated that a learning curve exists for some outcome variables for endoscopic pituitary surgery. However, there is significant heterogeneity in the current body of literature which makes clear comparisons difficult.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10143-023-02136-8.

          Related collections

          Most cited references23

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

          Julian P. T. Higgins, Douglas G. Altman, Peter C. Gøtzsche … (2014)
          Flaws in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of randomised trials can cause the effect of an intervention to be underestimated or overestimated. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias aims to make the process clearer and more accurate
          Article 0 comments Cited 7197 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

            Matthew J T Page, Joanne E McKenzie, Patrick Bossuyt … (2021)
            The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Article 0 comments Cited 481 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Endoscopic endonasal skull base surgery: analysis of complications in the authors' initial 800 patients.

              A Kassam, Paul Gardner, Carl H Snyderman … (2011)
              The development of endoscopic endonasal approaches, albeit in the early stages, represents part of the continuous evolution of skull base surgery. During this early period, it is important to determine the safety of these approaches by analyzing surgical complications to identify and eliminate their causes. The authors reviewed all perioperative complications associated with endoscopic endonasal skull base surgeries performed between July 1998 and June 2007 at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. This study includes the data for the authors' first 800 patients, comprising 399 male (49.9%) and 401 female (50.1%) patients with a mean age of 49.21 years (range 3-96 years). Pituitary adenomas (39.1%) and meningiomas (11.8%) were the 2 most common pathologies. A postoperative CSF leak represented the most common complication, occurring in 15.9% of the patients. All patients with a postoperative CSF leak were successfully treated with a lumbar drain and/or another endoscopic approach, except for 1 patient who required a transcranial repair. The incidence of postoperative CSF leaks decreased significantly with the adoption of vascularized tissue for reconstruction of the skull base (< 6%). Transient neurological deficits occurred in 20 patients (2.5%) and permanent neurological deficits in 14 patients (1.8%). Intracranial infection and systemic complications were encountered and successfully treated in 13 (1.6%) and 17 (2.1%) patients, respectively. Seven patients died during the 30-day perioperative period, 6 of systemic illness and 1 of infection (overall mortality 0.9%). Endoscopic endonasal skull base surgery provides a viable median corridor based on anatomical landmarks and is customized according to the specific pathological process. This corridor should be considered as the sole access or may be combined with traditional approaches. With the incremental acquisition of skills and experience, endoscopic endonasal approaches have an acceptable safety profile in select patients presenting with various skull base pathologies.
              Article 0 comments Cited 86 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Nicholas G. Candy: nicholas.candy@adelaide.edu.au
                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): Neurosurg Rev
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Neurosurg Rev
                Title: Neurosurgical Review
                Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg (Berlin/Heidelberg )
                ISSN (Print): 0344-5607
                ISSN (Electronic): 1437-2320
                Publication date (Electronic): 12 September 2023
                Publication date PMC-release: 12 September 2023
                Publication date (Print): 2023
                Volume: 46
                Issue: 1
                Electronic Location Identifier: 241
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.1010.0, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 7304, Department of Surgery - Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, , The University of Adelaide, Basil Hetzel Institute for Translational Research, ; Woodville South, Adelaide, Australia
                [2 ]GRID grid.416075.1, ISNI 0000 0004 0367 1221, Department of Neurosurgery, , Royal Adelaide Hospital, ; Adelaide, Australia
                Article
                Publisher ID: 2136
                DOI: 10.1007/s10143-023-02136-8
                PMC ID: 10497425
                PubMed ID: 37698777
                SO-VID: 2c6db63f-2aed-42a7-ab35-e2ae84ce7908
                Copyright © © The Author(s) 2023
                License:

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                Date received : 24 June 2023
                Date revision received : 24 July 2023
                Date accepted : 28 August 2023
                Funding
                Funded by: The University of Adelaide
                Open Access :

                Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions

                Categories
                Subject: Review
                Custom metadata
                issue-copyright-statement © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2023

                ScienceOpen disciplines: Surgery
                Keywords: endoscopic surgery,pituitary,endocrine,neurosurgery
                Data availability:
                ScienceOpen disciplines: Surgery
                Keywords: endoscopic surgery, pituitary, endocrine, neurosurgery

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content368

                See all similar

                Cited by1

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors444

                See all reference authors