MedElevator
Войти в исследования Pituitary · 2017
Visual outcomes after endoscopic endonasal pituitary adenoma resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Muskens Ivo S, Zamanipoor Najafabadi Amir H, Briceno Vanessa, Lamba Nayan, Senders Joeky T, van Furth Wouter R, Verstegen Marco J T, Smith Timothy R S, Mekary Rania A, Eenhorst Christine A E, Broekman Marike L D
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Patients with pituitary adenomas often present with visual deficits. While the aim of endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal surgery (EETS) is to improve these deficits, permanent worsening is a possible outcome. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of EETS for pituitary adenomas on visual outcomes.
METHODS: A meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. Pooled prevalence was calculated for complete recovery, improvement, and deterioration of visual field deficits, visual acuity and unspecified visual function in fixed- and random-effect models, including assessment of heterogeneity (I2) and publication bias (Begg's test).
RESULTS: Out of 2636 articles, 35 case series were included in the meta-analysis. Results are described for fixed-effect models. For patients with impaired visual acuity, only one study reported complete recovery (27.2%). Pooled prevalence for improvement was 67.5% (95% CI = 59.1-75.0%), but with considerable heterogeneity (I2: 86.0%), and 4.50% (95% CI = 1.80-10.8%) for patients experiencing deterioration. For patients with visual field deficits, the prevalence was 40.4% (95% CI = 34.8-46.3%) for complete recovery, 80.8% (95% CI = 77.7-83.6%) for improvement, and 2.3% (95% CI = 1.1-4.7%) for deterioration. For the unspecified visual outcomes, pooled prevalence of complete recovery was 32.9% (95% CI: 28.5-37.7%), but with considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 84.2%). The prevalence was 80.9% (95% CI = 77.9-83.6) for improvement and 2.00% (95% CI = 1.10-3.40%) for deterioration. Random-effect models yielded similar results. Publication bias was non-significant for all the outcomes.
CONCLUSION: While visual deficits improved after EETS in the majority of patients, complete recovery was only achieved in less than half of the patients and some patients even suffered from visual deterioration.
METHODS: A meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. Pooled prevalence was calculated for complete recovery, improvement, and deterioration of visual field deficits, visual acuity and unspecified visual function in fixed- and random-effect models, including assessment of heterogeneity (I2) and publication bias (Begg's test).
RESULTS: Out of 2636 articles, 35 case series were included in the meta-analysis. Results are described for fixed-effect models. For patients with impaired visual acuity, only one study reported complete recovery (27.2%). Pooled prevalence for improvement was 67.5% (95% CI = 59.1-75.0%), but with considerable heterogeneity (I2: 86.0%), and 4.50% (95% CI = 1.80-10.8%) for patients experiencing deterioration. For patients with visual field deficits, the prevalence was 40.4% (95% CI = 34.8-46.3%) for complete recovery, 80.8% (95% CI = 77.7-83.6%) for improvement, and 2.3% (95% CI = 1.1-4.7%) for deterioration. For the unspecified visual outcomes, pooled prevalence of complete recovery was 32.9% (95% CI: 28.5-37.7%), but with considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 84.2%). The prevalence was 80.9% (95% CI = 77.9-83.6) for improvement and 2.00% (95% CI = 1.10-3.40%) for deterioration. Random-effect models yielded similar results. Publication bias was non-significant for all the outcomes.
CONCLUSION: While visual deficits improved after EETS in the majority of patients, complete recovery was only achieved in less than half of the patients and some patients even suffered from visual deterioration.