ArticleCurrent medical science2025
Utilization of the Cavitron Ultrasound Surgical Aspiration System in Resective Epilepsy Surgery.
Article in Current medical science, 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.
- Erbin Regulates Neuronal Hyperexcitability and Seizure Susceptibility in Temporal Lobe Epilepsy.Neuroscience bulletin · 2026Article
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
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to systematically evaluate the application of the Cavitron Ultrasonic Surgical Aspirator (CUSA) system in epilepsy surgery and summarize associated surgical experiences.
methodsIn this retrospective analysis, 70 patients with refractory epilepsy underwent CUSA-assisted resection, while 20 controls underwent conventional surgical resection. Patients were categorized according to surgical scenarios for CUSA application, including lesion-related epilepsy resections, mesial temporal lobe procedures, neocortical resections within eloquent areas, and cases requiring preservation of critical vascular structures. Detailed operative metrics were analyzed for each category. Comparative assessments between the CUSA and conventional groups included surgical efficiency, complication rates, and postoperative seizure outcomes on the basis of the modified Engel classification.
resultsCUSA was used for the following procedures: resection of epileptic lesions (n = 26), mesial temporal structures (n = 32), the epileptogenic neocortex (n = 28), and the rolandic cortex (n = 17). Additionally, it was utilized in 6 cases requiring vascular protection during insular resection and in 18 cases involving preservation of cortical dangerous veins. Although the overall surgical efficiency was comparable between the CUSA and conventional groups (68.0 ± 18.2 vs. 61.1 ± 14.7 min, P = 0.180), the CUSA group demonstrated superior efficiency in resecting low-grade tumors (58.6 ± 14.9 vs. 68.1 ± 11.2 min, P = 0.034). Furthermore, the CUSA group presented significantly fewer permanent complications (5.7% vs. 10%, P < 0.0001) and a higher rate of Engel Class I outcomes (82.9% vs. 70.0%, P = 0.278).
conclusionsThe CUSA system represents a suitable and promising surgical tool for resective epilepsy surgery, potentially serving as a valuable option for epilepsy surgeons. Further studies are warranted to validate these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41247653What 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.