ReviewBrain & spine2025
Surgical management and postoperative outcomes of orbital cavernous malformations: A systematic literature review by the EANS skull base section.
Review in Brain & spine, 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
Introduction: Orbital cavernous malformations (OCMs) are benign vascular lesions frequently associated with progressive proptosis and visual disturbances due to their slow growth and compression of adjacent structures. Multiple surgical approaches have been developed for their treatment, including microsurgical transfacial-transorbital approaches (MTTAs), cranio-orbital approaches (MCOAs), orbitotomies (MOs), endoscopic endonasal approaches (EEAs), and endoscopic transorbital approaches (ETOAs). However, the optimal approach remains a topic of debate. Research objective: This systematic review aims to compare the resection rates, postoperative complications, and clinical outcomes across various surgical approaches for OCM management. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library according to PRISMA guidelines. Studies reporting surgical treatment of OCMs with clinical outcome data were included. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Statistical analyses were conducted using chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests. Results and conclusions: Of 239 screened studies, 94 met inclusion criteria, comprising 1007 patients (mean age 43.9 years; 58.5 % female). Proptosis (63.2 %) and visual impairment (48.1 %) were the most common symptoms. Most lesions were intraconal (80 %) and laterally positioned (42.8 %). EEAs were the most commonly used approach (40.1 %), followed by MOs (25.7 %) and MTTAs (21.6 %). Gross total resection was achieved in 93.7 % of cases. Complications were infrequent: visual acuity worsening (3.9 %), diplopia (2.4 %), and enophthalmos (1.7 %). Functional outcomes improved significantly, particularly visual acuity (65.1 %) and proptosis (61.6 %). EEAs provide high resection rates with minimal morbidity, especially for medial OCMs. ETOAs represent a promising, minimally invasive option for laterally located lesions.
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.