SynthesisNeurosurgical review2025
Endoscopic treatment methods of suprasellar arachnoid cysts in children: 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.
- Technical nuances of endoscopic transcortical transventricular fenestration for management of giant suprasellar arachnoid cysts in adults: illustrative cases.Journal of neurosurgery. Case lessons · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Endoscopic procedures, especially ventriculocystostomy (VC) and ventriculocystocisternostomy (VCC), are preferred treatments for suprasellar arachnoid cysts (SACs). Yet, results from current studies on their effects are varied. This study offers a comprehensive systematic review on surgical and clinical outcomes after VC and VCC and the risk of reoperation is compared by a meta-analysis. We conducted a literature search following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to identify surgical articles evaluating endoscopic treatment modalities for SAC using PubMed/Medline and Embase. The primary outcome was the risk of reoperation with a subgroup analysis among infants < 1 years of age. Postoperative complications were described to the extend they were reported in the literature. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scoring system. The meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.0 to compare the reoperation rates for VC and VCC as a risk ratio from a Forest plot with 95% confidence intervals in a fixed-effects model. Publication bias was assessed visually using a funnel plot. Nineteen observational studies were eligible for inclusion, comprising 94 patients who underwent VCC and 427 patients who underwent VC. Patients who underwent VCC had a significantly lower risk of reoperation of 0.33 (95% CI 0.17-0.65; p < 0.002). However, the risk of postoperative complications was considerable for both VCC (16.7%) and VC (12.7%), yet not significantly different (p = 0.915). Within the subgroup of infants age < 1 year, the risk of reoperation was significantly higher (29.4%) compared to older children (5.7%) (95% CI 1.96-42.07; p < 0.002). The results support VCC as an effective and long-lasting treatment for symptomatic SACs with significantly lower reoperation rates, compared to VC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41286181What 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.