Nishanth Sadashiva ನಿಶಾಂತ್ Sadashiva

Prof. Nishanth Sadashiva ನಿಶಾಂತ್ Sadashiva

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

12Years (2015-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 February 2020 in World Neurosurgery
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
GTGaurav Tyagi
Gaurav Tyagi
NSNishanth Sadashiva ನಿಶಾಂತ್ Sadashiva
Nishanth Sadashiva ನಿಶಾಂತ್ Sadashiva
SKSubhas Konar
Subhas Konar
HAHanumanthapura Ramalingaiah Aravinda
Hanumanthapura Ramalingaiah Aravinda
JSJitender Saini
Jitender Saini
BDBhagavatula Indira Devi
Bhagavatula Indira Devi

22 December 2020 in Surgical Neurology International
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
MTManjul Tripathi
Manjul Tripathi
NSNishanth Sadashiva ನಿಶಾಂತ್ Sadashiva
Nishanth Sadashiva ನಿಶಾಂತ್ Sadashiva
AGAnand Gupta
Anand Gupta
PJParth Jani
Parth Jani
SPSachin Jose Pulickal
Sachin Jose Pulickal
NKNarendra Kumar
Narendra Kumar
Background: The correct diagnosis of trigeminal neuralgia (TN) is still a far cry and the patients suffer from unnecessary dental procedures before getting the definite treatment. In this study, we evaluated, if the patients have undergone dental procedures for their misdiagnosed TN before receiving definite treatment for the same. Methods: A total of 187 patients received GKRS for their TN (excluding secondary TN) in two institutes from 2010 to 2019. We did a retrospective analysis of these patients’ primary complaints on a standard questionnaire. Results: One hundred and seventeen of the 187 patients responded. About 55.5% of patients had a toothache and 65.8% did visit a dentist for the pain. About 41.8% of patients underwent one dental procedure; 18.8% suffered from worsening of the pain while 8.5% received some partial improvement. About 19.6% also underwent root canal treatment while 6.8% had a nerve block. Mean of 1.6 teeth was extracted per person. About 71% of patients were satisfied with their Gamma Knife radiosurgery for TN at a median follow-up of 49 months. Conclusion: There is a need for a better understanding of the disease among the dentists and the patients for the timely and correct treatment, without losing their teeth. The onus lies on neurosurgeons/neurologists disseminate knowledge regarding proper diagnosis and treatment modalities.

1 August 2018 in World Neurosurgery
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
NRNiveditha Ravindra
Niveditha Ravindra
NSNishanth Sadashiva ನಿಶಾಂತ್ Sadashiva
Nishanth Sadashiva ನಿಶಾಂತ್ Sadashiva
AMAnita Mahadevan
Anita Mahadevan
DBDhananjay I. Bhat
Dhananjay I. Bhat
JSJitender Saini
Jitender Saini

1 September 2019 in Journal of Clinical Neuroscience
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
ASAbhinith Shashidhar
Abhinith Shashidhar
NSNishanth Sadashiva ನಿಶಾಂತ್ Sadashiva
Nishanth Sadashiva ನಿಶಾಂತ್ Sadashiva
APA.R. Prabhuraj
A.R. Prabhuraj
KRKannepalli Narasingha Rao
Kannepalli Narasingha Rao
STSarbesh Tiwari
Sarbesh Tiwari
BDBhagavatula Indira Devi
Bhagavatula Indira Devi

1 December 2017 in European Journal of Radiology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
NYNishtha Yadav
Nishtha Yadav
SRShilpa Rao
Shilpa Rao
JSJitender Saini
Jitender Saini
CPChandrajit Prasad
Chandrajit Prasad
AMAnita Mahadevan
Anita Mahadevan
NSNishanth Sadashiva ನಿಶಾಂತ್ Sadashiva
Nishanth Sadashiva ನಿಶಾಂತ್ Sadashiva

1 September 2021 in Neurology India
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
NSNishanth Sadashiva ನಿಶಾಂತ್ Sadashiva
Nishanth Sadashiva ನಿಶಾಂತ್ Sadashiva
HDHarsh Deora
Harsh Deora
KAKirit Arumalla
Kirit Arumalla
SRShilpa Rao
Shilpa Rao
JSJitender Saini
Jitender Saini
VSVani Santosh
Vani Santosh
Background: Pineal parenchymal tumors account for less than 0.3% of all CNS tumors and “Pineal parenchymal tumor of intermediate differentiation” (PPTID; World Health Organization (WHO) grades II and III) exhibit intermediary differentiation and prognosis. However “Papillary tumor of the pineal region” (PTPR; WHO grades II and III) is a distinct entity. Objectives: This combination of rarity and apparent similarity often leads to perplexity regarding the treatment and prognosis among neurosurgeons. In this review, we have tried to elucidate the differences in clinical as well as treatment modalities and outcomes of these two entities. Methods: We used the PubMed Database to search for all relevant articles using the keywords “pineal parenchymal tumor of intermediate differentiation” and “Papillary tumor of the pineal region.” Articles having details regarding demographic and clinical variables along with treatment and outcomes were chosen for this study. Full text of these articles was analyzed, and data tabulated. Results: A total of 25 articles for PPTID and 45 for PTPR were found suitable for inclusion in this study. The studies were either case reports or small retrospective series with only one systemic review for each pathology. Despite the poor quality of data, some trends were apparent. Surgical resection offered a survival benefit in both pathologies. Radiotherapy was effective in increasing the survival in PPTID, while there was little to no effect in PPTR. Chemotherapy was not found to be beneficial in either. Conclusion: Both of these tumors have moderate growth rate and potential for malignant behavior. This continuum of characteristics makes their optimal treatment strategy difficult and confusing. The discussion on comprehensive literature review should give information for neurosurgeons to decide on optimal treatment strategies.