SynthesisNeurosurgical review2025
Which surgical technique has a superior clinical outcome in microvascular decompression? a systematic review and meta-analysis study of transposition versus interposition for trigeminal neuralgia and hemifacial spasm.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Microvascular decompression (MVD) remains the most effective treatment for managing trigeminal neuralgia, hemifacial spasm, and glossopharyngeal neuralgia. Despite variations in technique, the clinical outcomes of transposition and interposition for MVD have shown mixed results. Here, we use a meta-analysis approach to evaluate the clinical outcomes of transposition versus interposition techniques for trigeminal neuralgia and hemifacial spasm. We systematically retrieved articles published before August 31, 2024, from PubMed, the Cochrane Library Database, and Web of Science. Our analysis included 9 studies encompassing 1,392 patients. We found that transposition was performed more frequently (58.8%) than interposition (42.2%). Both techniques exhibited comparable clinical outcomes for early spasm resolution (92.81% vs. 86.64%; OR [odd ratio] = 1.09; 95% CI [confidence interval], 0.27-4.37; p = 0.907), recurrence rates (5.57% vs. 6.34%; OR = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.32-1.60; p = 0.410), and overall postoperative complications (12.24% vs. 12.93%; OR = 1.01; 95% CI, 0.67-1.54; p = 0.951). Transposition demonstrated superior postoperative total resolution compared to interposition (90.17% vs. 86.25%; OR = 2.14; 95% CI, 1.48-3.11; p < 0.001). A subgroup analysis demonstrated that this superior postoperative total resolution only found in hemifacial spasm (96.73% vs. 90.90%; OR = 3.54; 95% CI, 1.78-7.07; p < 0.001) but not in trigeminal neuralgia (83.38% vs. 77.42%; OR = 1.77; 95% CI, 0.72-4.37; p = 0.213). In conclusion, this meta-analysis demonstrates that both techniques show comparable clinical outcome in early spasm resolution, recurrence rate, and postoperative complications, but transposition achieves superior postoperative total resolution outcomes. These findings suggest that transposition is a preferable approach whenever possible, i.e., in patients with hemifacial spasm, while interposition remains a reliable alternative.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40338347What 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.