PURE ENDOSCOPIC ENDONASAL APPROACH FOR PITUITARY ADENOMAS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to report the results of a consecutive series of patients undergoing pituitary surgery using a pure endoscopic endonasal approach and to evaluate the efficacy and safety of this procedure. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed 200 consecutive patients with pituitary adenoma who underwent purely endoscopic transsphenoidal resection of their lesions. The patients' clinical outcomes, including remission rates, degrees of tumor removal, and complications, were evaluated and compared with a previous microscopic series. RESULTS: There were 111 nonfunctioning adenomas and 34 growth hormone-secreting, 27 adrenocorticotropin hormone-secreting, 25 prolactin-secreting, and 3 thyroid-stimulating hormone-secreting adenomas. The degree of gross total removal for tumors with suprasellar or parasellar extension and without cavernous sinus involvement was 96% and for intrasellar lesions was 98%. After a median follow-up period of 19 months, the remission results for patients with functioning adenomas were 71% for growth hormone-secreting, 81% for adrenocorticotropin hormone-secreting, and 88% for prolactin-secreting adenomas, with no recurrence at the time of the last follow-up. This compares with similar results reported from series using a standard microsurgical approach (growth hormone-secreting adenomas, 67%; adrenocorticotropin hormone-secreting adenomas, 78%; and prolactin-secreting adenomas, 62%). Endoscopic surgery for recurrent or residual nonfunctioning adenomas that had been previously treated using a microscopic approach revealed in the majority of cases a more limited exposure during the initial surgery, frequently with incomplete tumor removal. Complication rates have been low, and the average length of hospital stay was reduced. CONCLUSION: A purely endoscopic approach for pituitary adenoma treatment is a safe and effective alternative to the traditional microscopic procedure. Although our results reveal excellent tumor-removal rates, comparable remission rates in functioning tumors, and a very low rate of complications, additional studies with longer follow-up periods are required to confirm whether this approach should be considered the preferred procedure for pituitary 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".