Endoscopic Versus Microsurgical Resection of Third Ventricle Colloid Cysts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Endoscopic resection of colloid cysts has been performed as an alternative to microsurgical resection and stereotactic aspiration since 1982. To date, there are limited published studies comparing these procedures. In this study, we present the largest series of endoscopic resections published to date and compare outcomes to a cohort of microsurgical resections performed at the same institution. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted for all patients in the Calgary Health Region undergoing resection of a colloid cyst between 1991 and 2004. Comparison was made between patients treated with endoscopic resection versus microsurgical resection. RESULTS: Twenty-five endoscopic and nine microsurgical procedures were performed. Complete resection was achieved in 24 of 25 procedures in the Endoscopic group, compared with all 9 procedures in the Microsurgical group. Patients in the Endoscopic group had a reduced operative time (mean 104 minutes versus 217 minutes) and reduced length of stay (3.8 days versus 8.4 days) compared to the Microsurgical group. One patient in the Endoscopic group had a complication (hemiparesis/pulmonary embolus). By contrast, 3 patients in the Microsurgical group had complications (seizure, ventriculitis/bone flap infection, and transient memory deficit). There was one recurrence in each group which both occurred at 5 years follow-up. The mean length of follow-up is 38 months in the Endoscopic group and 33 months in the Microsurgical group. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic resection of colloid cysts can be performed with significantly lower risk of complication than microsurgical resection and with equivalent surgical success. Operative time and length of hospital stay are both significantly reduced with endoscopic resection.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".