Evidence Hub

Microsurgical versus endoscopic trans-sphenoidal approaches for clivus chordoma: a pooled and meta-analysis

Cannizzaro D, Tropeano MP, Milani D, Spaggiari R, Zaed I, Mancarella C, Lasio GB, Fornari M et al.

Neurosurgical review, 2021

Abstract

Chordoma is a rare slow-growing neoplastic bone lesion. However, they show an invasive local growth and high recurrence rate, leading to an overall survival rate of 65% at 5 years and 35% at 10 years. We conducted a pooled and meta-analysis comparing recurrence rate, post-operative-complications, and survival in patients undergoing either microsurgical (MA) or endoscopic approaches (EA). Search of literature was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to identify surgical series of clivus chordomas published between January 1990 and March 2018 on Pubmed, Scopus, and Cochrane. Two different statistical analyses have been performed: a pooled analysis and a single-arm meta-analysis of overall recurrence rate and subgroup meta-analysis of complications in the subgroups open surgery and endoscopic surgery. After full-text screening, a total of 58 articles were included in the pooled analysis and 27 studies were included for the study-level meta-analysis. Pooled analysis-the extent of resection was the only association that remained significant (subtotal: HR = 2.18, p = 0.004; partial: HR = 4.40, p < 0.001). Recurrence was more prevalent among the surgical patients (45.5%) compared to endoscopic ones (23.7%). Meta-analysis-results of the cumulative meta-analysis showed an overall rate of recurrence of 25.6%. MA recurrence rate was 31.8% (99% CI 14-52.8), EA recurrence rate was 19.4% (5.4-39.2). CSF…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free