SynthesisNeurosurgical review2024
Efficacy and safety of reoperation for residual or recurrent hemifacial spasm after microvascular decompression: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2024. 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.
- Etiological analysis and reoperative strategies for recurrent or failed hemifacial spasm after microvascular decompression.Neurosurgical review · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The efficacy and safety of revision microscopic microvascular decompression (microscopic MVD) for treating residual or recurrent hemifacial spasm (HFS) remain uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the benefits and risks associated with this reoperation, focusing primarily on spasm relief, facial palsy, and hearing impairment. This study adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. We performed a comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for eligible articles from their inception through June 2024. A total of 17 studies involving 719 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Among these patients, 668 experienced overall symptom relief following reoperation, resulting in a relief rate of 94% (95% CI: 92-96%). Complete relief was achieved in 603 patients, corresponding to a rate of 87% (95% CI: 80-93%). Transient facial palsy developed in 4% (95% CI: 1-8%) of patients, while persistent facial palsy was observed in 5% (95% CI: 2-8%) of patients following reoperation. Transient hearing impairment occurred in 1% (95% CI: 0-3%) of patients, while persistent hearing impairment was reported in 4% (95% CI: 1-7%) of patients. Patients with recurrent HFS have significantly lower overall and complete relief rates after reoperation compared to those with residual HFS and are at higher risk of long-term hearing loss. Our study suggests that reoperation for residual or recurrent HFS after microscopic MVD could be considered a safe and effective treatment option. Early reoperation may be indicated in specific cases, and the timing should be tailored to each patient's specific circumstances to optimize outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39414678What 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.