ArticleFrontiers in surgery2025
Analysis of 37 cases of percutaneous balloon compression for primary trigeminal neuralgia: experience and outcome from a single center.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study investigated the therapeutic effect and clinical experience of percutaneous balloon compression (PBC) for the treatment of primary trigeminal neuralgia (TN). Methods: This is a retrospective study. We enrolled 37 patients with symptomatic primary unilateral TN who underwent PBC and 217 patients who received microvascular decompression (MVD) at our hospital from May 2020 to May 2023. Data on demographics, surgical techniques, pain relief outcomes, and postoperative complications were collected and analyzed. The pain relief and complications of patients receiving PBC were compared to those of patients with MVD. Results: For 37 patients receiving PBC, the mean follow-up time was 12.6 months. Successful treatment was achieved in 35 cases, while 2 cases failed due to foramen ovale stenosis. Among the patients who were successfully treated, all 35 (100%) patients experienced immediate pain relief, and all developed facial numbness immediately following the procedure. At the last follow-up, 11 (31.4%) patients with facial numbness had resolved, and 24 (68.6%) patients had varying degrees of response. Masseter weakness was observed in 23 patients (65.7%), which recovered at 3 months of follow-up. No instances of intracranial hemorrhage, keratitis, diplopia, intracranial infection, or death were reported in this study. A significant association was identified between balloon compression duration, balloon shape, and pain relief outcomes, with approximately 3 min of compression and typical pear-shaped balloons achieving optimal results. Comparatively, PBC demonstrated comparable rates of complete pain relief to MVD, although MVD had lower rates of complications. Conclusion: PBC is an effective and safe minimally invasive technique for managing primary TN, demonstrating high rates of immediate pain relief. Despite being associated with transient complications, PBC allows for a rapid recovery and return to normal activities. These findings underscore the need for careful patient selection and consideration of potential postoperative complications when opting for PBC vs. MVD. Further studies should explore long-term outcomes and strategies to minimize complications associated with PBC.
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.