4.5 Article

Extent of Resection Research in Skull Base Neurosurgery: Previous Studies and Future Directions

期刊

WORLD NEUROSURGERY
卷 161, 期 -, 页码 396-404

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2021.10.184

关键词

Extent of resection; Mixed-methods study; Predictive analytics; Propensity matching; Research methodology; Scoring systems; Skull base neurosurgery

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Surgery is the primary treatment for most benign and malignant skull base tumors, with extent of resection being a crucial preoperative planning metric. Future research should focus on multi-institutional collaboration, expert consensus, and predictive analytics/machine learning to improve research on extent of resection in skull base neurosurgery.
Surgery is the first-line therapy for most benign and malignant skull base tumors. Extent of resection (EOR) is a metric commonly used for preoperative surgical planning and to predict risk of postoperative tumor recurrence. Therefore, understanding the evidence on EOR in skull base neurosurgery is essential to providing optimal care for each patient. Several studies from the skull base neurosurgery literature have presented investigations of various topics related to EOR, including 1) preoperative EOR scoring systems, 2) intraoperative EOR scoring systems, 3) EOR and tumor recurrence, and 4) EOR and functional outcomes. We propose that future investigations should focus on the following elements to improve EOR research in skull base neurosurgery: 1) multi-institutional collaboratives with treatment propensity matching; 2) expert consensus and mixed-methods study design; and 3) predictive analytics/machine learning. We believe that these methods offer several advantages that have been described in the literature and that they address limitations of previous studies. The aim of this review was to inform future study design and improve the overall quality of subsequent investigations on EOR in skull base neurosurgery.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据