Endoscopic Treatment of Rathke’s Cleft Cysts: The Case for Simple Fenestration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Rathke’s cleft cysts (RCC) arise from the pars intermedia because of incomplete regression of the embryologic Rathke pouch. A subset of RCC becomes symptomatic causing headaches, visual and endocrinological disturbances such that surgical intervention is indicated. Several points in surgical management remain controversial including operative strategy (simple fenestration (SF) vs complete cyst wall resection (CWR)) as well as reconstructive techniques. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted of pathologically confirmed RCC operated on by endoscopic endonasal approach from 2006 to 2019. Pre-operative symptoms, imaging characteristics, operative strategy, symptom response, complications and recurrences were recorded. Results: Thirty-nine patients were identified. Thirty-three underwent SF and six underwent CWR. Worsening pituitary function was significantly increased with CWR (50%) compared to SF (3%) (p = 0.008). All patients underwent “closed” reconstruction with a post-operative CSF leak rate of 5% (3% SF vs 16% CWR, p = 0.287). Six (15%) recurrences necessitating surgery were reported. Recurrence rates stratified by surgical technique (18% SF vs 0% CWR, p = 0.564) were not found to be significantly different. Conclusions: The current series illustrates variability in the surgical management of RCCs. SF with closed reconstruction is a reasonable operative strategy for most symptomatic RCCs cases while CWR can be reserved for selected cases.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".