ArticleHeliyon2024
Outcome of endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery for acromegaly: Comparison of using and not using the floor standing pneumatic powered endoscope-holder system.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery can be performed by two surgeons, including an endoscopist (PE/2S), and by a single surgeon with an endoscope-holder system (PE/1S + H). We analyzed the surgical outcome, and outcome predictors in acromegaly patients in endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery using floor standing pneumatic endoscope-holder system. Methods: Endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery was performed with PE/1S+H (n = 51) and PE/2S (n = 20). Postoperative remission was evaluated by the 2010 consensus criteria for acromegaly. We compared the surgical results of PE/2S style and PE/1S+H style, and investigated the factors associated with favorable surgical outcomes. Results: There was no difference in clinical background between the PE/2S and the PE/1S + H groups. The remission rates for PE/2S and PE/1S+H were 65.0% and 82.4%, respectively, with no significant difference (p = 0.128). In consecutive 71 cases, statistically useful predictors of remission were low preoperative growth hormone (GH) level (<12 ng/mL), low Knosp grade (0-2), and low revised Knosp grade (0-3A). In the conventional Knosp grade 0-2 and 3/4, the sensitivity was 0.76 and the specificity was 0.81. In the revised Knosp grade 0-3A and 3B/4, the sensitivity was 0.96 and the specificity was 0.44. Conclusion: The outcome of GH-producing pituitary neuroendocrine tumors surgically removed by PE/1S+H could be almost equivalent to that by PE/2S. Preoperative low GH level and Knosp grades, including revised Knosp grades, are useful preoperative predictors for surgical remission of acromegaly.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.