ArticleNeurosurgical review2025
A comparison of long-term outcomes between interposition with teflon and autologous muscle in microvascular decompression for trigeminal neuralgia.
Article 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Microvascular decompression (MVD) is an established surgical procedure for treating classical trigeminal neuralgia (TN) by separating the trigeminal nerve from an offending vessel. Various materials can be used for interposition, Teflon being the standard in many centers. Autologous muscle is used as an alternative; however, comparative studies are sparse. We compared the outcomes of patients who underwent MVD for TN with either Teflon or muscle in the same center. We searched our database for patients who underwent MVD for TN between 2007 and 2024. The records were analyzed for outcome parameters, and patients or their relatives were contacted via phone if follow-up data were insufficient. Exclusion criteria included repeat MVD, lack of initial improvement after surgery, and loss to follow-up. The primary outcome parameter was treatment failure, defined as Barrow Neurological Institute (BNI) pain intensity score IV or V. 70 patients were identified. After applying the exclusion criteria, 48 were available for the outcome analysis, among whom 21 had received interposition with muscle and 27 with Teflon. The mean patient age was 65 years, 56.25% were female, and the pain was right-sided in 62.5% of patients. At a mean follow-up of 85 months, 12.5% had experienced treatment failure (14.29% in the muscle group and 11.11% in the Teflon group; p = 0.741). Kaplan-Meier analysis with log-rank test and logistic regression analysis revealed no significant differences. We found no differences in the outcomes of MVD for TN when either autologous muscle or Teflon was used. Both materials are appropriate for interposition.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41071375What 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.