Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.1371/journal.pone.0153397 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1371/journal.pone.0153397 C4849742!4849742!27124276     free     free     free Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 219.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 219.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 219.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 219.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 219.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 219.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 253.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 253.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 253.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 253.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534       PLoS+One 2016 ; 11 (4): ä Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=27124276|t=2016. Mononostril versus Binostril Endoscopic Transsphenoidal Approach for Pituitary Adenomas: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |pdf=|usr=}}{{27124276}} gab.com Text Mononostril versus Binostril Endoscopic Transsphenoidal Approach for Pituitary Adenomas: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis JO: PLoS One http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=27124276 #FOAvip Background: Over the past several decades, the endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal approach (EETA) has gradually become a preferred option of pituitary adenomas surgery because of its minimal invasiveness and high efficiency. However, some EETA operations were performed through one nostril (mononostril), while other EETA operations were performed through both nostrils (binostril). Therefore, we conducted this study to compare the pros and cons of these two methods in an attempted to confirm which method is more effective. Methods: We executed a systematic literature search of PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science and Medline (1992?2015). The language is limited to English and all studies should meet the inclusion criteria. Comparisons were made for postoperative outcomes, complications, and other relevant parameters between the mononostril and the binostril group. Statistical analyses of categorical variables were undertaken by the use of Stata 12.0 and SPASS 19.0. Results: Thirty studies, involving 4805 patients, were included. The two groups had similar results in GTR rate (included GTR rate of macroadenomas), hormonal remission rate, improvement in visual function, postoperative CSF leak, permanent diabetes insipidus, meningitis, and sinusitis. The binostril group had less temporary diabetes insipidus (2.9% vs. 5.3%, p = 0.022), less anterior pituitary insufficiency (2.3% vs. 6.4%, p = 0.000) and few hospitalization days (3.2 days vs. 4.4 days, p<0.05) than the mononostril group. However, the mononostril group had less rate of epistaxis (0.4% vs. 1.5%, p = 0.008) than the binostril group. For invasive macroadenomas, the binostril group seem to demonstrate a tendency towards better outcomes though there was no subgroup analysis between the two groups. Conclusion: The binostril approach had less temporary diabetes insipidus, anterior pituitary insufficiency, and a shorter length of hospital stay, although they demonstrated a higher rate of epistaxis than the mononstril group. Additionally, the binostril group seemed to suggest a tendency towards better outcomes for invasive macroadenomas. Twit Text FOAVip Mononostril versus Binostril Endoscopic Transsphenoidal Approach for Pituitary Adenomas: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis ????PLoS One http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=27124276 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=27124276 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|27124276}}</ref> Mononostril versus Binostril Endoscopic Transsphenoidal Approach for Pituitary Adenomas: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis #MMPMID27124276 Wen G; Tang C; Zhong C; Li X; Li J; Li L; Yang Y; Ma C PLoS One 2016[]; 11 (4): ä PMID27124276show ga Background: Over the past several decades, the endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal approach (EETA) has gradually become a preferred option of pituitary adenomas surgery because of its minimal invasiveness and high efficiency. However, some EETA operations were performed through one nostril (mononostril), while other EETA operations were performed through both nostrils (binostril). Therefore, we conducted this study to compare the pros and cons of these two methods in an attempted to confirm which method is more effective. Methods: We executed a systematic literature search of PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science and Medline (1992?2015). The language is limited to English and all studies should meet the inclusion criteria. Comparisons were made for postoperative outcomes, complications, and other relevant parameters between the mononostril and the binostril group. Statistical analyses of categorical variables were undertaken by the use of Stata 12.0 and SPASS 19.0. Results: Thirty studies, involving 4805 patients, were included. The two groups had similar results in GTR rate (included GTR rate of macroadenomas), hormonal remission rate, improvement in visual function, postoperative CSF leak, permanent diabetes insipidus, meningitis, and sinusitis. The binostril group had less temporary diabetes insipidus (2.9% vs. 5.3%, p = 0.022), less anterior pituitary insufficiency (2.3% vs. 6.4%, p = 0.000) and few hospitalization days (3.2 days vs. 4.4 days, p<0.05) than the mononostril group. However, the mononostril group had less rate of epistaxis (0.4% vs. 1.5%, p = 0.008) than the binostril group. For invasive macroadenomas, the binostril group seem to demonstrate a tendency towards better outcomes though there was no subgroup analysis between the two groups. Conclusion: The binostril approach had less temporary diabetes insipidus, anterior pituitary insufficiency, and a shorter length of hospital stay, although they demonstrated a higher rate of epistaxis than the mononstril group. Additionally, the binostril group seemed to suggest a tendency towards better outcomes for invasive macroadenomas. äMononostril versus Binostril Endoscopic Transsphenoidal Approach for P(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing