ArticleNeurosurgical review2025
Comparative study of the refined mini-pterional approach with reduced skin incision versus the conventional mini-pterional approach for clipping unruptured middle cerebral artery aneurysms: a propensity score-matched analysis.
Article 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of the refined mini-pterional approach (rMP), utilizing a smaller skin incision, with the conventional mini-pterional approach (cMP) for microsurgical clipping of unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIAs) in the middle cerebral artery (MCA). A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted, including 186 patients: 92 patients who underwent rMP between 2021 and 2022, and 94 patients treated with cMP between 2019 and 2020. Clinical outcomes included length of stay (LOS, days), operative time (minutes), intraoperative blood loss (ml), aneurysm obliteration rate, postoperative complication rates, and the severity of temporalis muscle atrophy (TMA). Propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to minimize selection bias and ensure comparability of baseline characteristics between the two cohorts. Following PSM, the rMP group demonstrated significantly reduced LOS (cMP, 4.76 ± 2.32 days vs. rMP, 3.25 ± 1.10 days; p < 0.001), shorter operative time (cMP, 166.86 ± 51.62 min vs. rMP, 119.03 ± 33.71 min; p < 0.001), and lower intraoperative blood loss (cMP, 396.36 ± 392.04 ml vs. rMP, 225.75 ± 149.56 ml; p = 0.001) compared to the cMP group. There were no statistically significant differences in aneurysm obliteration rates or postoperative complication rates between the two approaches. The degree of TMA showed a favorable trend in the rMP cohort. The rMP offers significant advantages over the cMP in MCA UIA clipping, including shorter LOS, reduced operative time, lower intraoperative blood loss, and less severe TMA, without compromising aneurysm obliteration or increasing complication rates. These findings suggest that the rMP is a safe and effective alternative to the cMP for MCA aneurysm clipping.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40281190What 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.