Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Meta-analysis estimates nearly 10% unplanned readmission rate after transsphenoidal pituitary surgery, indicating hyponatremia and cerebrospinal fluid leak as key causes.
Objective: Unplanned readmission (UR) after transsphenoidal pituitary surgery poses a significant healthcare burden, but its exact incidence, causes, and risk factors remain unclear. This meta-analysis aims to estimate the 30-day UR rate, identify its main causes, and explore associated risk factors. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted from inception to July 2025. Included studies reported 30-day UR rates and risk factors after transsphenoidal pituitary adenoma resection. Pooled incidence rates and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were derived using random-effects models. Heterogeneity was evaluated with I² statistics, and study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results: Ten studies with 51,618 patients were included. The pooled 30-day UR rate was 9.68% (95% CI: 7.87–11.91). Hyponatremia (28.67%, 95% CI: 15.30–53.72) and cerebrospinal fluid leak (15.7%, 95% CI: 8.07–30.53) were the most common causes. Both all-cause and hyponatremia-related readmissions clustered early after surgery, with mean times of 9.96 days (95% CI: 6.51–13.42) and 8.05 days (95% CI: 5.86–10.25), respectively, suggesting a shared high-risk window around the first two weeks. No risk factor was reported in more than two studies, preventing meta-analysis of predictors. Conclusion: This meta-analysis confirms a high 30-day UR rate (nearly 10%) after transsphenoidal pituitary surgery, primarily due to hyponatremia and CSF leak. The aligned timing of readmissions underscores a critical post-discharge period. These findings emphasize the need for structured follow-up and early intervention—especially extended electrolyte monitoring and complication-specific management—to effectively reduce readmission risk.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: