Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37831295›Full record

SynthesisNeurosurgical review2023

Reconstruction of orbital walls after resection of cranioorbital meningiomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data.

Nikolay Lasunin, Vasiliy Cherekaev, Abdulla Abdullaev, Vadim Gadzhiagaev, Gleb Danilov, Yulia Strunina, Denis Golbin, Dmitriy Okishev

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Nikolay LasuninBurdenko National Medical Research Center for Neurosurgery, Moscow, Russian Federation.
Vasiliy CherekaevBurdenko National Medical Research Center for Neurosurgery, Moscow, Russian Federation.
Abdulla AbdullaevBurdenko National Medical Research Center for Neurosurgery, Moscow, Russian Federation.
Vadim GadzhiagaevBurdenko National Medical Research Center for Neurosurgery, Moscow, Russian Federation. vgadzhiagaev@yandex.ru.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7661-4402
Gleb DanilovBurdenko National Medical Research Center for Neurosurgery, Moscow, Russian Federation.
Yulia StruninaBurdenko National Medical Research Center for Neurosurgery, Moscow, Russian Federation.
Denis GolbinBurdenko National Medical Research Center for Neurosurgery, Moscow, Russian Federation.
Dmitriy OkishevBurdenko National Medical Research Center for Neurosurgery, Moscow, Russian Federation.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Following meningioma removal, there are numerous methods available for reconstructing the orbital wall. This systematic review seeks to summarize the published data on the surgical treatment of cranioorbital meningiomas, and to analyze the effectiveness and safety of various techniques and materials used for the reconstruction of bony orbital walls. We conducted a search of the two databases and included original articles with a series of 10 or more cases. Descriptive statistics and meta-analysis of individual patient date were performed. The analysis included a total of 858 patients from 29 sources. No reconstruction of the orbital walls was performed in 525 patients (61.2%), while 333 observations (38.8%) involved resection followed by reconstruction. A relative improvement in eye position was achieved in 94.4% of cases with a 95% CI of (88.92%; 97.25%). However, normalization of eye position, regardless of reconstruction technique, was only present in 6.22% of cases with a 95% CI of (1.24%; 25.9%). The best results were observed with the use of autologous bone implants (64%, 95% CI [33.35%; 86.33%]) and titanium implants (55.78%, 95% CI [2.86%; 98.18%]). In cases of endoscopic resection and microsurgical resection without reconstruction, symmetrical eye position accounted for only 1.94% (95% CI [0%; 96.71%]) and 2.35% (95% CI [0.13%; 31.23%]), respectively. The frequency of normalization of eye position differed significantly (p < 0.01) among the subgroups. A total of 49 postoperative complications were registered, with wound infection (1.52%, 95% CI [0.86%; 2.65%]) and wound cerebrospinal fluid leak (1.32%, 95% CI [0.6%; 2.91%]) being the most frequent. No significant differences were found in the rates of complications among the different subgroups. One of the primary objectives of cranioorbital meningioma surgery is to correct the position of the eye. Simultaneous reconstruction of the bony orbital leads to better cosmetic outcomes. Postoperative complications did not depend on the reconstructive technique or the materials.

Indexed as

Meningeal NeoplasmsMeningiomaEndoscopyHumansPostoperative ComplicationsProstheses and ImplantsTreatment OutcomeCranioorbitalMeningiomaOrbital wallsReconstructionSphenoorbital

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.