ArticleActa neurochirurgica2020
Reoperation after failed microvascular decompression for glossopharyngeal neuralgia.
Article in Acta neurochirurgica, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Microvascular decompression in glossopharyngeal neuralgia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Acta neurologica Belgica · 2026Pooled it
- Long-term outcomes of microvascular decompression vs neurotomy for glossopharyngeal neuralgia: a multicenter clinimetric study.Pain reports · 2026Article
- Long-Term Follow-Up of Ultrasound-Guided Glossopharyngeal Nerve Block Treatment for Glossopharyngeal Neuralgia: A Retrospective Clinical Study of 43 Cases.Journal of pain research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMicrovascular decompression (MVD) is known as a safe and effective procedure to treat glossopharyngeal neuralgia (GN). However, some patients experienced poor pain relief after MVD, for which the mechanism is not clear yet. Reviewing the intraoperative findings and postoperative effect of reoperation for patients who failed the first MVD, is helpful to figure out why the first MVD for GN failed.
methodsThere were eight patients with GN who failed first MVD. The possibilities for secondary GN were eliminated by physical and radiological examination. The reoperation through the previous incision was conducted, and appropriately, treatment was provided according to the intraoperative findings. The video data and prognosis of the reoperation were retrospectively reviewed. The reasons for the invalid first MVD were analyzed.
resultsTo the end of follow-up, there were 7 patients of pain-free, and one patient with occasional mild pain attacks (VAS 2). There was one patient who experienced transient hoarseness in 3 months after the reoperation. We summarized the causes for failed first MVD which were omission of the offending vessel in 3 cases, inadequate decompression of the nerve root in 2 cases, and excessive decompression materials which caused iatrogenic nerve root compression in 3 cases.
conclusionsFor patients with recurrent or failed after MVD, a thorough examination should be carried out to eliminate the possibility of secondary GN. Reoperation through the previous incision is safe and effective. The bone window should be close enough to the sigmoid sinus to aid the exposure of the nerve root. The nerve transection could be adopted if no offending vessels were found. And a multi-site decompression could be used when the vertebral artery is the offending vessel.
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.