Expanded Endonasal Endoscopic Surgery in Suprasellar Craniopharyngiomas: A Retrospective Analysis of 43 Surgeries Including Recurrent Cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The role of expanded endonasal endoscopic surgery for primary and recurrent craniopharyngioma is not yet fully established. OBJECTIVE: To report and evaluate our experience with the endoscopic endonasal approach (EEA) for the resection of primary and recurrent craniopharyngiomas. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort analysis of 43 consecutive EEA procedures in 40 patients operated from September 2006 to February 2012 for suprasellar craniopharyngiomas. In 21 patients (48.8%) the disease was recurrent. We have assessed the surgical results, visual, endocrinological, and functional outcomes and resection rates in this patient cohort. RESULTS: At presentation, 31 (72.1%) patients had visual deficits, 15 patients (34.9%) complained of headaches, 25 patients (58.1%) had anterior pituitary insufficiency, and 14 (32.5%) had diabetes insipidus. Total resection was achieved in 44.2% surgeries, of which 77.3% were in primary lesions and 9.5% in recurrent lesions (P < .001). Vision improved in 92.6% patients and worsened in 2.3%. Complications other than vision were encountered in 25.6% including 9/43 cerebrospinal fluid leak, 2/43 meningitis. A total of 51.9% of patients with preoperative residual anterior pituitary function had new anterior pituitary deficiencies and 42.8% had new diabetes insipidus. There was no mortality. Six patients (14%) had recurrence of disease during the follow-up period (mean 56.8 mo), 5 of which required repeat surgery. CONCLUSION: The EEA can be integrated in the overall management of both primary and recurrent craniopharyngiomas with good results; however, in our series recurrent surgery was associated with significantly lower rates of gross total 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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".