ArticleJournal of neurosurgery. Case lessons2025
Removal of a nonmissile, transorbital, intracranial glass shard: illustrative case.
Article in Journal of neurosurgery. Case lessons, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe management of nonmissile penetrating head injuries is not well established given the heterogeneity of injuries described. The authors describe the management of a patient who presented to their institution along with a review of the literature. OBSERVATIONS: The glass shard was removed in the operating room with the ophthalmology team without complication. A diagnostic cerebral angiogram was also obtained in an urgent and delayed fashion. A total of 53 studies with 90 patients were included. The mean age was 27 years, and 86% of subjects were male. The frontal region violated via metal spike was the most common location of injury. Prophylactic antibiotics and antiepileptic drugs were administered in 68% and 24%, respectively. Craniotomy for removal was performed in 82% of cases and infection occurred in 6%. LESSONS: Emergency CT angiography should be obtained when concern for vascular injury based on trajectory or significant depth of penetration exists. Immediate administration of prophylactic antibiotics and AEDs should be completed. Diagnostic angiography for suspicion of vessel injury in an urgent and delayed fashion should be performed. Removal of intracranial objects should only occur in the operating room. Immediate postoperative CT should be utilized to rule out worsening of intracranial injury. https://thejns.org/doi/10.3171/CASE24851.
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.