Endoscopic Transnasal Management of Meningoceles and Encephaloceles in Children: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review surgical techniques used in the endoscopic transnasal repair of pediatric basal meningoencephaloceles and compare perioperative outcomes in children <2 and ≥2 years old. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL. REVIEW METHODS: Data sources were searched from inception to August 22, 2022, using search terms relevant to endoscopic transnasal meningoencephalocele repair in children. Reviews and Meta-analyses were excluded. Primary outcomes were the incidence of intraoperative and postoperative complications, including cerebrospinal fluid leak, recurrence, and reintervention. Quality assessments were performed using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, ROBIN-I, and NIH. RESULTS: Overall, 217 patients across 61 studies were identified. The median age at surgery was 4 years (0-18 years). Fifty percent were female; 31% were <2 years. Most defects were meningoencephaloceles (56%), located transethmoidal (80%), and of congenital origin (83%). Seventy-five percent of repairs were multilayered. Children ≥2 years underwent multilayer repairs more frequently than those <2 years (P = 0.004). Children <2 years more frequently experienced postoperative cerebrospinal fluid leaks (P = 0.02), meningoencephalocele recurrence (P < 0.0001), and surgical reintervention (P = 0.005). Following multilayer repair, children <2 years were more likely to experience recurrence (P = 0.0001) and reintervention (P = 0.006). CONCLUSION: Younger children with basal meningoencephaloceles appear to be at greater risk of postoperative complications following endoscopic endonasal repair, although the quality of available evidence is weakened by incomplete reporting. In the absence of preoperative cerebrospinal fluid leak or meningitis, it may be preferable to delay surgery as access is more conducive to successful repair in older children.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".