SynthesisNeurosurgical review2025
Tubular retractors in neuro-oncological surgery: a systematic review and 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Neuro-oncological surgery necessitates a careful balance between maximising tumour resection whilst minimising damage to healthy brain parenchyma. Tubular retractors represent an emerging tool proposed to facilitate in the optimisation of this onco-functional balance. The objective was to evaluate the evidence regarding tubular retractors in neuro-oncological surgery. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. Studies reporting on surgical outcomes of tubular retractors in adult neuro-oncological cases were eligible. Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ICTRP were searched to 14th July 2024. Duplicate title/abstract screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments were conducted. Prevalence of gross total resection (GTR) and complications were calculated using random effects models. 49 studies were included in the final analysis with a total of 684 patients. Combined pooled prevalence for GTR was 76% (95% CI: 67-85%), whilst for complications was 14% (95% CI: 8-20%). GTR rate by tumour histology was: 52% for gliomas (95% CI: 41-62%), 80% for metastases (95% CI: 65-92%), and 100% for colloid cysts (95% CI: 99-100%). Complication rate by tumour histology was: 16% for gliomas (95% CI: 5-30%), 12% for metastases (95% CI: 1-28%), and 16% for colloid cysts (95% CI: 8-24%). There was no significant difference between tubular retractor brands and GTR or complication rate (p > 0.05). Despite the mounting interest regarding the utility of tubular retractors in neuro-oncological surgery, the current evidence remains largely in the form of case series. Prospective studies with greater sample sizes, longer follow-up, and direct comparison to conventional retraction are now needed.
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.