Purely endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery versus traditional microsurgery for resection of pituitary adenomas: systematic review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine, in a systematic review, whether purely endoscopic transsphenoidal resection of pituitary adenomas offers improved outcomes and decreased complications compared to the traditional microscopic approach. DESIGN: Systematic review. SETTING: The literature was searched using Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library (inception to October 2009) by two independent review authors. METHODS: Studies were included if they compared the two surgical approaches for the management of pituitary adenomas and at least one main outcome measure. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Gross tumour resection (GTR), recurrence, visual field improvement, hormone resolution, mean blood loss, mean operative time, mean hospital length of stay, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak, hormone deterioration, vision deterioration, nasal complications, meningitis, and death. RESULTS: Ten studies met the inclusion criteria (one prospective and nine retrospective) and involved 687 patients. The purely endoscopic approach was associated with less mean blood loss, shorter hospital stays and operative times, and fewer nasal complications. There was also a trend toward better GTR and decreased incidence of postoperative diabetes insipidus. However, a higher incidence of postoperative CSF leak was also noted with the endoscopic approach. Other outcomes and complication rates appeared to be similar between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Purely endoscopic transsphenoidal resection of pituitary adenomas seems to be safe and efficacious when compared to the traditional microscopic approach and may offer some benefit.
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".