ReviewActa neurochirurgica2026
Dangers of orbital retraction in transorbital neuroendoscopic surgery.
Review in Acta neurochirurgica, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis review summarizes the risks associated with orbital retraction in transorbital neuroendoscopic surgery (TONES) and proposes practical strategies to optimize surgical freedom while preserving visual function.
methodsA qualitative review synthesized through a systematic literature search of PubMed (MEDLINE) database. Studies involving human or cadaveric TONES and endoscopic transorbital approaches were reviewed.
resultsTen studies met inclusion criteria, comprising cadaveric as well as human subjects. Virtual-reality and cadaveric models revealed that 10-11 mm of globe displacement provides adequate surgical freedom, whereas sustained retraction beyond approximately 15 mm results in steep rises in intraocular and intra-orbital pressure posing a higher risk of orbital compartment syndrome. Clinical reports link prolonged retraction to transient or permanent mydriasis, ocular hypotony, decompression retinopathy, and visual loss.
conclusionOrbital retraction is central to TONES but is the principal driver of ocular morbidity. Based on the available evidence, retraction should be dynamic, gentle, and intermittent, with globe displacement generally limited to 10-12 mm. Apex-directed focal pressure should be avoided, and continuous monitoring of pupil and intraocular pressure is essential. Multidisciplinary protocols are recommended to standardize safe retraction practices while preserving the advantages of TONES.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.