Is It Justified to Sacrifice the Pituitary Stalk During Craniopharyngioma Surgery? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Pituitary stalk sacrifice is a surgical dilemma in craniopharyngioma surgery that needs a wise decision. To the authors' knowledge, this is the first study to conduct a meta-analysis of the current literature to assess if it is worth preserving the stalk during craniopharyngioma surgery or it is justified to sacrifice it. METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases were searched for craniopharyngioma studies till December 2021 that directly compared the endocrine sequelae of stalk sacrifice vs preservation in their patients. Odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI was used through fixed- and random-effects models. RESULTS: Fourteen studies with a total of 2074 patients met our inclusion criteria. The stalk was preserved in 925 patients (44.6%), was sacrificed in 1053 patients (50.8%), and was not identified intraoperatively or partially preserved, or the authors did not mention enough data for 96 patients (4.6%). Our study found that sacrifice of the pituitary stalk was associated with a significantly increased risk of endocrine dysfunction at the last follow-up (OR = 6.69, 95% CI = 3.36-13.35, P < .0001); however, it was not associated with a significant decrease in the risk of recurrence/progression of the disease (OR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.60-1.06, P = .13). CONCLUSION: Pituitary stalk sacrifice significantly increased the risk of postoperative endocrine dysfunction without reducing the risk of progression or recurrence of craniopharyngioma. The ability to preserve the pituitary stalk intraoperatively is multifactorial, and stalk preservation is recommended whenever possible. Future prospective studies are recommended to assess the effect of confounding factors on the outcomes of stalk sacrifice/preservation.
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 | 0.014 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".