Seizure Risk following Open and Expanded Endoscopic Endonasal Approaches for Intradural Skull Base Tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives The incidence of seizures following a craniotomy for tumor removal varies between 15 and 20%. There has been increased use of endoscopic endonasal approaches (EEAs) for a variety of intracranial lesions due to its more direct approach to these pathologies. However, the incidence of postoperative seizures in this population is not well described. Methods This is a single-center, retrospective review of consecutive patients undergoing EEA or open craniotomy for resection of a cranial base tumor between July 2007 and June 2014. Patients were included if they underwent an EEA for an intradural skull base lesion. Positive cases were defined by electroencephalograms and clinical findings. Patients who underwent a craniotomy to remove extra-axial skull base tumors were analyzed in the same fashion. Results Of the 577 patients treated with an EEA for intradural tumors, 4 experienced a postoperative seizure (incidence 0.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.002–0.02). Over the same period, 481 patients underwent a craniotomy for a skull base lesion of which 27 (5.3%, 95% CI: 0.03–0.08) experienced a seizure after surgery. The odds ratio for EEA was 0.13 (95% CI: 0.05–0.35). Both populations were different in terms of age, gender, tumor histology, and location. Conclusion This study is the largest series looking at seizure incidence after EEA for intracranial lesions. Seizures are a rare occurrence following uncomplicated endonasal approaches. This must be tempered by selection bias, as there are inherent differences in which patients are treated with either approach that influence the likelihood of seizures.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".