Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41542821›Full record

SynthesisHead & neck2026

Transoral Styloidectomy Approach: A Systematic Review and Enhanced Endoscopic Approach.

Nana-Hawwa Abdul-Rahman, Vanessa Helou, Lauren A Gardiner, Paul A Gardner, Carl H Snyderman

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Head & neck, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Nana-Hawwa Abdul-RahmanDepartment of Otolaryngology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID 0009-0003-1932-5390
Vanessa HelouDepartment of Otolaryngology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Lauren A GardinerDepartment of Otolaryngology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Paul A GardnerDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Carl H SnydermanDepartment of Otolaryngology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8920-4522

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSynthesize transoral styloidectomy approaches, highlight advantages, disadvantages, surgical outcomes, and describe an improved endoscopic transoral technique.

methodsA systematic review of peer-reviewed articles was conducted on November 11, 2025 in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Medline.

resultsOf the 204 articles screened, 45 met inclusion criteria. Four transoral approaches and four visual enhancement techniques were described. Surgical success rate was 94% with no intraoperative complications and a postoperative complication rate of 6.3%. The length of resected styloid averaged 2.91 ± 1.33 cm (range: 1-6 cm). Mean operative time was 47 ± 22 min. Median follow-up time was 6 months (IQR: 3-12 months).

conclusionTransoral styloidectomy is safe and effective for the treatment of Eagle's syndrome. An enhanced endoscopic approach with indocyanine green (ICG) fluoroscopy and neuromonitoring improves intraoperative visualization and helps identify critical vascular structures, potentially reducing the risk of inadvertent injury.

Indexed as

EndoscopyNatural Orifice Endoscopic SurgeryOssification, HeterotopicTemporal BoneHumansMouthOperative TimeTreatment OutcomeEagle's syndromestyloidectomysystematic reviewtransoral approach

Identifiers

PMID41542821
PMCPMC13155192

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.