4.5 Article

Change in cephalocaudal tumor cavity diameter after transsphenoidal surgery is a predictor of diabetes insipidus in pituitary adenoma

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL RESEARCH
Volume 27, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s40001-022-00700-4

Keywords

Diabetes insipidus; Transsphenoidal surgery; Pituitary adenoma; Cephalocaudal tumor cavity; Multivariate

Funding

  1. Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Province [2021J011306]
  2. Department of Science and Technology of Fuzhou City [2021-S-180]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to evaluate the factors contributing to the development of diabetes insipidus after transsphenoidal surgery for pituitary adenomas. The change in cephalocaudal tumor cavity diameter was found to be associated with the occurrence of postoperative diabetes insipidus.
Objective To assess the factors influencing the development of diabetes insipidus after transsphenoidal surgery for pituitary adenomas. Methods We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of patients with pituitary adenoma who underwent transsphenoidal surgery. The pituitary gland was assessed using a 3.0 T magnetic resonance imaging, and the predictors of postoperative diabetes insipidus were determined through univariate and multivariate analyses. Results A total of 212 eligible patients with pituitary adenomas were included; 82 (38.7%) cases developed postoperative diabetes insipidus while 130 cases (61.3%) did not. Diabetes insipidus was transient in 80 (37.7%) patients and permanent in 2 (0.9%) patients. The results of logistic regression analyses showed that the change in cephalocaudal tumor cavity diameter after transsphenoidal surgery was associated with the occurrence of postoperative diabetes insipidus. Conclusions Change in cephalocaudal tumor cavity diameter after transsphenoidal surgery may play an important role in predicting diabetes insipidus onset in patients with a pituitary adenoma.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available