ArticleCureus2025
CyberKnife Treatment of Medically Intractable Trigeminal Neuralgia: A Comparison of Isocentric and Non-isocentric Treatment Planning Outcomes.
Article in Cureus, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is commonly used to treat medically intractable trigeminal neuralgia. The target is either a point on the trigeminal nerve (isocentric treatment) or a finite length of the nerve (non-isocentric treatment). The superiority of one approach over the other is not well established. We compare our treatment outcomes for the two approaches in terms of pain relief and the most frequent side effect, facial numbness. METHODOLOGY: A total of 83 consecutive patients (41 isocentric, 42 non-isocentric) were treated for trigeminal neuralgia with CyberKnife. Pain relief and facial numbness were scored using the Barrow Neurological Institute (BNI) scale, and the time to pain relief and facial numbness was recorded.
resultsThere was no statistically significant difference in the probability of pain relief or the time to pain relief or facial numbness. Symptomatic numbness (numbness score >= III) was more prevalent in patients treated with the non-isocentric technique (isocentric 4, 9.8%; non-isocentric 10, 23.8%;
conclusionsIsocentric and non-isocentric techniques provide equivalent pain relief for trigeminal neuralgia. Symptomatic facial numbness is more prevalent when using the non-isocentric technique.
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.