ArticleActa neurochirurgica2022
Reoperation for residual or recurrent hemifacial spasm after microvascular decompression.
Article in Acta neurochirurgica, 2022. 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.
- Efficacy and safety of reoperation for residual or recurrent hemifacial spasm after microvascular decompression: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Neurosurgical review · 2024Pooled it
- Fully endoscopic microvascular decompression for hemifacial spasm: a clinical study and analysis.Neurosurgical review · 2024Article
- Delayed complete remission of hemifacial spasms following microvascular decompression and the implications for optimal time of revision surgery.Acta neurochirurgica · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMicrovascular decompression (MVD) surgery is the only potential curative method for hemifacial spasm (HFS). Little attention is paid to those recurrent/residual HFS cases. We want to study the potential etiology of those recurrent/residual HFS cases and evaluate the value of reoperation.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed reoperation hemifacial spasm patients in our hospital. Intraoperative videos or images were carefully reviewed, and the etiology of recurrent/residual HFS is roughly divided into three categories. Intraoperative findings, surgical outcomes, and complications were carefully studied to assess the value of reoperation for recurrent/residual HFS patients.
resultsA total of 28 cases were included in our case series. Twenty-three of them are recurrent HFS cases, and 5 of them are residual HFS cases. The mean follow-up duration is 24.96 months. There are seventeen patients with missed culprit vessels or insufficient decompression of root exit zone (REZ), eight patients with Teflon adhesion, and three patients with improper application of decompression materials in our case series. The final reoperation outcome with 17 excellent, seven good, and four fair, respectively. Eight (28.57%) of them experienced long-term complications after reoperation.
conclusionRe-operation for recurrent/residual HFS is an effective therapy and can achieve a higher cure rate. However, the complication rate is higher compared to the first MVD surgery. Accurately identifying REZ and proper decompression strategies to deal with the culprit vessels are very important for surgical success. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: UIN: researchregistry7603. Date of registration: Jan. 31st, 2022 "retrospectively registered".
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.