ReviewNeurosurgical review2021
Cerebral cavernous malformation remnants after surgery: a single-center series with long-term bleeding risk analysis.
Review in Neurosurgical review, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Stereotactic radiosurgery in the treatment of pediatric cerebral cavernous malformations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes and safety.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2025Pooled it
- Predictors of seizure as presenting symptom of cerebral cavernomas.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
- Clinical Features and Treatment of Pediatric Cerebral Cavernous Malformations.Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society · 2024Article
- Editorial: Veins in the brain.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this work is to investigate the long-term bleeding risk of cerebral cavernous malformation (CCM) remnants. A review of clinical, radiological, operative, and post-operative data of a cerebral cavernous malformation (CCMs) prospective database was performed. Fisher's exact test and Mann-Whitney U-test were used to assess differences between non-hemorrhagic and hemorrhagic CCM remnants for 14 variables. Recursive partitioning analysis was performed to assess the order of variables most associated with CCM remnant bleeding. Twenty-four patients out of 126 had a CCM post-surgical remnant. Of these, 7 had at least one post-operative hemorrhagic event. The mean follow-up was 80.7 months (range 12-144). CCM post-surgical remnant bleeding presented mostly with acute headache (50%) and focal neurological deficit (25%); in the remaining cases, the hemorrhage was asymptomatic. Retreatment was performed in two patients, with surgery and radiosurgery, respectively; no treatment was performed in the majority of cases. All patients ranked as non-II, according to Zabramski classification, did not show any post-surgical bleeding. The presence of a pre-operative perilesional hemosiderin ring was highly significant in predicting post-surgical bleeding (sensitivity = 0.94, specificity = 0.88) and incorrectly predicted bleeding in only two of the 24 patients. This study provides an evaluation of clinical and radiological factors influencing the bleeding risk of a CCM post-surgical remnant in a homogeneous population. Perilesional hemosiderin ring and Zabramski Type II appear to strongly condition the bleeding risk of a CCM post-surgical remnant.
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.