ArticleNeurosurgical review2007
Cavernous malformations of the orbit: a distinct entity? A review of own experiences.
Article in Neurosurgical review, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Lateral orbitotomy for intraconal lesions: a ten-year single-center experience with surgical technique and clinical outcomes.Neurosurgical review · 2026Article
- Surgical management and postoperative outcomes of orbital cavernous malformations: A systematic literature review by the EANS skull base section.Brain & spine · 2025Review
- Biological identity of orbital cavernous venous malformations.Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia · 2024Review
- Review
- Endoscopic treatment of orbital tumors.World journal of clinical cases · 2015Review
- Co-occurrence of a cerebral cavernous malformation and an orbital cavernous hemangioma in a patient with seizures and visual symptoms: Rare crossroads for vascular malformations.Surgical neurology international · 2014Article
- Transcranial superior orbitotomy for the treatment of intraorbital intraconal tumors: surgical technique and long-term results in single institute.Neurosurgical review · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We collected data to provide evidence that orbital cavernous malformations (CMs) are histopathologically, neuroradiologically, and clinically different from cerebral CMs and may represent a distinct entity. In this study, the main clinical, histopathological and radiological characteristics of 19 patients (11 females and eight males, mean age 49.1 years) with orbital CMs out of a series of 376 orbital tumors are analyzed and compared with 107 cases with cerebral CMs treated in the same period. Decrease of visual acuity and painless progressive proptosis were the main clinical signs observed in 17 patients (89%). Complete microsurgical excision of lesions via individualized approaches was obtained in all cases. Follow-up examinations were obtained after a mean of 3.1 years (11 months to 7 years) and yielded complete recovery in 14 patients, while five remained clinically unchanged. Based on clinicopathological and neuroradiological studies of these 19 patients with orbital and 107 patients with cerebral CMs treated in the same period, we found evidence that orbital CMs have specific features to distinguish them from cerebral CMs. Orbital CMs, in contrast to the cerebral CMs, showed non-degenerated well-developed vessel walls and were covered by a hard and compact capsule. Clinical symptoms are characterized by the growth of orbital CMs due to intraluminal thrombosis and subsequent recanalization of cavernous vessels; there were no signs of hemorrhage. We found evidence to suggest that orbital CMs represent a distinct clinicopathologic and neuroradiologic entity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.