Extended endoscopic endonasal approach for selected pituitary adenomas: early experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECT: Whereas most pituitary adenomas are removable via the transsphenoidal approach, certain cases, such as dumbbell-shaped or suprasellar adenomas and recurrent and/or fibrous tumors, remain difficult to treat. The authors present their experience with the extended endoscopic endonasal approach to the suprasellar area in managing this subset of tumors, which are classically treated through a transcranial route. METHODS: From June 1997 to December 2008, 615 patients underwent endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal surgery for pituitary adenomas in the Department of Neurosurgery of the Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II. Of this group, 20 patients with pituitary adenomas needed an extended endoscopic endonasal transtuberculum/transplanum approach for tumor removal. Two surgical corridors were used during the transsphenoidal approach: 1) the conventional endosellar extraarachnoidal corridor and 2) a suprasellar transarachnoidal corridor. RESULTS: The extent of resection was gross total in 12 (60%) of the 20 patients, near total in 4 (20%), subtotal in 3 (15%), and partial in 1 (5%). Postoperative CSF leakage occurred in 1 patient. One patient experienced worsening of temporal hemianopsia. CONCLUSIONS: The authors' initial results with the extended endoscopic approach to the suprasellar area for selected pituitary adenomas are promising and may justify a widening of the current classical indications for transsphenoidal surgery.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".