SynthesisNeurosurgical review2025
Outcomes of trigeminal nerve microsurgical internal neurolysis for trigeminal neuralgia without neurovascular conflict: 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. 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
Trigeminal neuralgia (TN) without neurovascular conflict poses a therapeutic challenge. Microsurgical internal neurolysis (IN), also known as nerve combing, has emerged as a viable surgical option when microvascular decompression (MVD) is not indicated. This systematic review and meta-analysis, conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, included eight case series with a total of 193 patients. Pain relief outcomes were assessed using the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) criteria and the Barrow Neurological Institute (BNI) pain intensity score. Excellent pain relief (UCSF criteria) was achieved in 76.3% (67.4-85.2%) of patients, while 9.9% (3.6-16.2%) had a good outcome, and 5.9% (1-10.9%) experienced poor outcomes. Based on the BNI scale, successful pain relief (BNI I-II) was observed in 82.2% (72.2-92.2%) of patients. Hypoesthesia occurred in 49.2% (17.5-81.0%) of cases, while pain recurrence was reported in 10.2% (4.8-15.7%). Our findings, demonstrating high rates of pain relief, suggest that IN can be viable therapeutic alternative for patients with TN in the absence of neurovascular conflict. However, the risk of hypoesthesia highlights not only the importance of careful patient selection but also the significance of the microsurgical technique -specifically, the extent of disruption and whether the cut is longitudinal or transversal-both of which likely account for the wide variability reported, ranging from 17.5% to 81%. According to the GRADE framework, the overall certainty of the evidence was rated as very low, primarily due to the inclusion of non-randomized studies, predominantly high risk of bias, and considerable variability in results across studies. Further comparative studies are necessary to refine surgical indications and optimize outcomes for this patient population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41051437What 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.