SynthesisNeurosurgical review2025
Safety and efficacy of purely endoscopic microvascular decompression for trigeminal neuralgia: systematic review and single arm meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2025. 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Microscopic microvascular decompression(M-MVD) is considered the gold standard treatment for primary trigeminal neuralgia and presents excellent long-term pain control rates. Despite the effectiveness of M-MVD, the use of endoscopy in these procedures has proven to be a promising approach. To evaluate the safety and efficacy of purely endoscopic microvascular decompression (E-MVD). A systematic review of the literature was performed using the PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane databases. The primary outcome was satisfactory pain relief in short-term (0-30 days), mid-term (mean follow-up >/= 12 months) and long-term (mean follow-up >/= 24 months). Secondary outcomes were CSF leak, facial weakness, hearing loss, facial numbness, the rate of intraoperative identification of the offending vessel(s), mortality, length of stay and operative time. Inclusion criteria were studies including only patient submitted to E-MVD. Exclusion were secondary trigeminal neuralgia and mean follow-up < 12 months. Statistical analysis was performed using RStudio 2024.04.1 + 748. Heterogeneity was assessed using I² statistics. Sensitivity analysis was performed with leave-one-out test. Thirteen articles met the inclusion criteria, comprising a total of 1336 patients. Patients submitted to E-MVD had mean satisfactory pain relief rates of 92.93% (95% CI: 89.52-96.34% I2 = 86%), 88.54% (95% CI: 83.73-93.54% I2 = 87%) and 83.38% (95% CI: 76.58-90.17% I2 = 83%) in the short-term, mid-term and long-term follow-ups, respectively. Furthermore, the incidence of postoperative complications was low, including CSF leak (1.29% (95% CI: 0.32-2.26% I2 = 20%)), facial weakness (0.50% (95% CI: 0.00-1.79% I2 = 60%)), hearing loss (0.81% (95% CI: 0.05-1.57% I2 = 7%)) and facial numbness (3.84% (95% CI: 1.95-6.20% I2 = 54%)). There was no mortality related to the procedure (0% (95% CI: 0-0%; I2 = 0%)). The offending vessel(s) were identified in 99.57% of the cases (95% CI: 98.17-100.00% I2 = 67%)). Our meta-analysis revealed that E-MVD is a safe and effective procedure for the treatment of primary trigeminal neuralgia. Further studies are necessary to compare its usefulness to the traditional M-MVD approach.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39918650What 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.