ReviewHNO2017
[Neuroprotective medication in vestibular schwannoma surgery].
Review in HNO, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Nimodipine Treatment Protects Auditory Hair Cells from Cisplatin-Induced Cell Death Accompanied by Upregulation of LMO4.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExcept for glucocorticoids there is a lack of neuroprotective medication in neurosurgical interventions.
objectiveAn overview of clinical trials investigating administration of the calcium antagonist nimodipine and hydroxyethyl starch (HES) in vestibular schwannoma (VS) surgery is given. Basic research is addressed and potential neuroprotective effect mechanisms are discussed, as are perspectives for application of the concept to other types of surgery with a risk postoperative impairment of nerve function. MATERIALS AND
methodsA selective PubMed search was performed and all 10 clinical trials corresponding to the search criteria were included.
resultsFour trials with an intraoperative start of the medication showed a positive effect for the preservation of facial nerve function and hearing preservation. A pilot study showed superiority of prophylactic treatment over intraoperative application. There were no significant results in a prospective multicenter phase III trial. After 1 year, postoperative facial nerve preservation rates were excellent in both groups. However, the risk of hearing loss was twice as high in the control group. A combined analysis of the phase III trial with its pilot study showed significant results for better hearing preservation rates in the treatment group (probably by increasing the case load).
conclusionProphylactic nimodipine can be recommended in VS surgery in patients with good preoperative hearing. The effect mechanisms of nimodipine and modifications to prophylaxis should be clarified in basic research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28699040What 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.