The Endoscopic Endonasal Approach (EEA) in the Management of Recurrent Craniopharyngiomas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Recurrent craniopharyngiomas remain a significant management problem. The choice of surgical approach, the timing and use of adjuvant therapy are controversial with no uniform accepted protocol. Objective: To report and evaluate our experience with the endoscopic endonasal approach (EEA) for resection of recurrent craniopharyngiomas. Patients and Methods: From a retrospective cohort of 40 consecutive patients who underwent 43 EEA procedures between 2006–2012, 21 patients (48.8%) had recurrent tumors. The clinico-radiological presentation, surgical results, visual, endocrinological and functional outcomes were evaluated and compared between primary and recurrent tumors. The median follow up period was 23 months. Results: The disease was recurrent following one transcranial (TC) procedure in 12 patients, one TC and one microscopic transsphenoidal procedure in 2 patients and one TC and one EEA in 2 patients. One patient had two previous TC surgeries and one microscopic transsphenoidal approach. Two patients had a TC procedure and an endoscopic cyst fenestration. One patient had two TC surgeries and one EEA. Three of the 21 patients with recurrent disease had previous radiotherapy. The mean age (40.6 vs 41.9 years), maximum tumor diameter (2.9 cm vs 3.3 cm) and preoperative Karnofsky performance status (KPS) score was similar in both primary and recurrent groups. (p>0.05) Preoperative panhypopituitarusm (13.6 vs 61.9%) and diabetes insipidus (13.6 vs 52.4%) was significantly higher in the recurrent group. ( p < 0.05) Recurrent tumors were mainly of type II and type III of the Pittsburgh Classification. Total resection was achieved in 77% with primary lesions but only in 10% with recurrent lesions ( p < 0.001). The postoperative visual improvement (100 Vs 86.6%) as well as worsening of vision (0 vs 5%) was comparable in both groups. Worsening of anterior pituitary (52.6 vs 50%) as well as posterior pituitary function (42.1 vs 40%) was similar in both groups. No patient had a postoperative KPS score of <80 in the primary group, where as 25% in the recurrent group had a postoperative KPS <80. ( p < 0.05) Conclusions: While there was no difference in the mean age at presentation, tumor size and preoperative KPS between primary and recurrent tumors, recurrent tumors presented with increased anterior and posterior pituitary deficits. In our series, recurrent surgery was associated with significantly lower rates of gross total resection. There were no statistical differences in visual outcomes, postoperative diabetes insipidus, and other surgical complication rates between patients with primary and recurrent tumors. A significantly higher number of patient s had a poorer KPS score at follow-up in the recurrent group. The endoscopic endonasal approach has a significant role to play in recurrent cranioppharyngiomas especially if the original procedure was a TC approach and should be integrated in the overall management of these challenging lesions.
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 | 0.001 | 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".