SynthesisNeurosurgical review2025
Surgical treatment of giant intracranial aneurysms: A systematic review and single arm 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While endovascular approaches for giant intracranial aneurysms (GIAs) gained significant attention, there is no consensus regarding the superior approach between endovascular treatment and surgery for GIAs, particularly in underdeveloped countries. Thus, the authors investigated the safety and efficacy of non-endovascular treatment for GIAs. A systematic review was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies lacking clear aneurysm size data were excluded. Analysis was performed in R (version 4.4.1) using a generalized linear mixed model with a random-effects approach, including subgroup analyses for ruptured and unruptured aneurysms. Heterogeneity was assessed using I² statistics. Fifty-seven studies encompassing 2,109 patients with 2,133 aneurysms were analyzed. Clipping was the most common technique, followed by bypass procedures. Intraoperative complications occurred in 57 cases (6% [95% CI: 4%-9%]), while postoperative complications were reported in 398 cases (20% [95% CI: 16%-24%]). Bypass occlusion was observed in 9% of patients (95% CI: 7%-13%). Good clinical outcomes were achieved in 82% of patients (95% CI: 77%-85%), with a significantly higher rate of 89% in patients with unruptured aneurysms compared to 65% in those with ruptured aneurysms. The overall mortality rate was 7% (95% CI: 5%-8%), while the recurrence rate was 1% (95% CI: 0.35%-3%). Open surgical management for GIAs is effective and safe, especially for unruptured aneurysms. The low mortality rate and high rate of good clinical outcomes highlight the viability of surgical options. Given these results, surgical intervention remains a strong alternative, especially in settings where endovascular options may be less accessible or more costly. Further research is needed to refine treatment strategies and improve outcomes for both ruptured and unruptured GIAs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41423543What 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.