Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Gross total resection of pituitary adenomas after endoscopic vs. microscopic transsphenoidal surgery: a meta-analysis
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Gross total resection of pituitary adenomas after endoscopic vs. microscopic transsphenoidal surgery: a meta-analysis
Do you wish to request the book?
Gross total resection of pituitary adenomas after endoscopic vs. microscopic transsphenoidal surgery: a meta-analysis
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Gross total resection of pituitary adenomas after endoscopic vs. microscopic transsphenoidal surgery: a meta-analysis
2018
Overview
BackgroundMicroscopic transsphenoidal surgery (mTSS) is a well-established method to address adenomas of the pituitary gland. Endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery (eTSS) has become a viable alternative, however. Advocates suggest that the greater illumination, panoramic visualization, and angled endoscopic views afforded by eTSS may allow for higher rates of gross total tumor resection (GTR). The aim of this meta-analysis was to determine the rate of GTR using mTSS and eTSS.MethodsA meta-analysis of the literature was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases through July 2017 in accordance with PRISMA guidelines.ResultsSeventy case series that reported GTR rate in 8257 pituitary adenoma patients were identified. For all pituitary adenomas, eTSS (GTR=74.0%; I2 = 92.1%) was associated with higher GTR as compared to mTSS (GTR=66.4%; I2 = 84.0%) in a fixed-effect model (P-interaction < 0.01). For functioning pituitary adenomas (FPAs) (n = 1170 patients), there was no significant difference in GTR rate between eTSS (GTR=75.8%; I2 = 63.9%) and mTSS (GTR=75.5%; I2 = 79.0%); (P-interaction = 0.92). For nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas (NFPAs) (n = 2655 patients), eTSS (GTR=71.0%; I2 = 86.4%) was associated with higher GTR as compared to mTSS (GTR=60.7%; I2 = 87.5%) in a fixed-effect model (P-interaction < 0.01). None of the associations were significant in a random-effect model (all P-interaction > 0.05). No significant publication bias was identified for any of the outcomes.ConclusionAmong patients who were not randomly allocated to either approach, eTSS resulted in a higher rate of GTR as compared to mTSS for all patients and for NFPA patients alone, but only in a fixed-effect model. For FPA, however, eTSS did not seem to offer a significantly higher rate of GTR. These conclusions should be interpreted with caution because of the nature of the included non-comparative studies.
We currently cannot retrieve any items related to this title. Kindly check back at a later time.