SynthesisNeurosurgical review2025
Fully endoscopic approach to cerebellopontine angle tumors: 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. 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.
- Cerebello-Pontine Angle Tumors in Children: An Update on Challenging Neoplasms.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The cerebellopontine angle (CPA) is a surgically complex region due to its dense neurovascular anatomy. Traditional microscopic retrosigmoid approaches provide limited visualization in deep recesses. The fully endoscopic retrosigmoid approach (FERA) has emerged as an alternative, offering panoramic views and potentially improved functional outcomes. However, its efficacy and safety remain incompletely defined. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed following PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched through February 2025. Eligible studies reported ≥ 5 patients undergoing CPA tumor resection exclusively with FERA. Data were synthesized using random-effects models, and outcomes included gross total resection (GTR), facial and hearing preservation, and perioperative complications. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. 11 studies comprising 282 patients (39.4% male; mean age 31-61 years) met inclusion criteria. Pathologies included 140 epidermoid cysts, 114 vestibular schwannomas, 18 meningiomas, and 21 other tumors. Pooled GTR was achieved in 85% (95% CI 74-92). Facial nerve preservation (House-Brackmann I-II) was 93% (95% CI 87-96), and serviceable hearing preservation (Gardner-Robertson I-II) was 73% (95% CI 49-88). One major complication (postoperative hemorrhage) was reported, while minor complications occurred in 14% of patients, predominantly cerebrospinal fluid leaks and transient neuropathies. Most studies demonstrated moderate risk of bias, with confounding and reporting heterogeneity as major limitations. FERA enables high resection rates with favorable facial nerve and hearing preservation, while maintaining an acceptable safety profile. Although current evidence supports feasibility, prospective comparative trials with standardized reporting are required to define its role relative to microscopic and endoscope-assisted techniques.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41251909What 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.