The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Surgery for Rathke cleft cysts: technical considerations and outcomes
Abstract
Object. The aim of this study was to identify the optimal surgical goals and techniques for managing symptomatic Rathke cleft cysts (RCCs). Methods. The authors conducted a retrospective study of 62 consecutive patients who had undergone surgery for RCCs. Postoperative follow up was a mean of 28 months. Fifty-six patients underwent transsphenoidal cyst decompression and biopsy procedures, and six underwent cyst wall resection. Postoperatively, symptoms improved in 91% of patients with headaches and 92% of patients with visual deficits. Decompression and biopsy were associated with a 10% incidence of new anterior pituitary hormone deficiencies and a 6% incidence of new permanent diabetes insipidus; the incidence of new hormone deficiencies was significantly higher in the few patients who had undergone cyst wall resection. The incidence of relapse, defined as cyst regrowth with either recurrent symptoms or chiasmal compression, was 16%. Resection of the cyst wall was associated with a trend toward a decreased risk of relapse. Sellar packing, sellar floor reconstruction, and irrigation with absolute ethanol did not affect the likelihood of relapse. Squamous metaplasia and inflammation increased the risk of relapse. Residual cyst demonstrated on postoperative magnetic resonance imaging was associated with an increased risk of subsequent asymptomatic cyst regrowth. Seven patients (11%) underwent repeated operation with symptomatic improvement and minimal morbidity; only one patient relapsed following a second surgery. Conclusions. Decompression and biopsy procedures in the treatment of RCCs lead to improvement in signs and symptoms, with low morbidity rates. Repeated operations will be required in as many as 16% of patients but are also associated with symptomatic improvement, low morbidity, and durable remission. Decompression and biopsy may represent the optimal surgical management of RCC.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Predictors of diabetes insipidus after transsphenoidal surgery: A review of 881 patients
Nemergut, E. C., Zuo, Z., Jane, J. A., & Laws, E. R. (2005) · Journal of neurosurgery · doi:10.3171/jns.2005.103.3.0448 · Cited by 313
Zada, G., Lin, N., Ojerholm, E., Ramkissoon, S., & Laws, E. R. (2010) · Neurosurgical Focus · doi:10.3171/2010.2.focus09318 · Cited by 271
Trifanescu, R., Ansorge, O., Wass, J. A. H., Grossman, A. B., & Karavitaki, N. (2012) · Clinical Endocrinology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2265.2011.04235.x · Cited by 175
Müller, H. L., Gebhardt, U., Faldum, A., Warmuth-Metz, M., Pietsch, T., Pohl, F., Calaminus, G., & Sörensen, N. (2012) · The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism · doi:10.1210/jc.2012-2069 · Cited by 122
Metadata
- Authors
- Benveniste, R. J., King, W. A., Walsh, J., Lee, J. S., Naidich, T. P., & Post, K. D.
- Venue
- Journal of Neurosurgery
- Published
- 2004-10
- Volume
- 101
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 577-584
- ISSN
- 0022-3085 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1979007820
- Cited by
- 187
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 2.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Surgery for Rathke cleft cysts: technical considerations and outcomes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3171/jns.2004.101.4.0577
- The paper
- Benveniste, R. J., King, W. A., Walsh, J., Lee, J. S., Naidich, T. P., & Post, K. D. (2004). Surgery for Rathke cleft cysts: technical considerations and outcomes. Journal of Neurosurgery. https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.2004.101.4.0577
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.