ReviewAsian journal of neurosurgery2026
Transcortical versus Transsylvian Approach for Insular Gliomas: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Asian journal of neurosurgery, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Insular gliomas can be resected via a transcortical (TC) or transsylvian (TS) approach. The TC approach avoids injury to the middle cerebral artery (MCA) and is considered suitable for gliomas with opercular spread. The TS approach is limited by bridging veins and a surgical "blind spot" for larger gliomas. We aimed to compare the TC and TS approaches for the resection of insular gliomas. A systematic review of the literature was performed using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases from inception to November 20, 2022, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Primary outcomes included the extent of resection (EOR), postoperative deficits, and immediate and delayed complications of both approaches. Summary estimate of proportion, random effects, and confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using R (statistical package). Sixteen studies with 1,517 patients (56.5% male) were included. The mean age ± standard deviation (SD) of patients was 43.6 ± 6.8 years. The predominant presenting symptom was first-onset seizure (62.8%), followed by headache (∼10%). There was a slight predominance of right-sided gliomas (52.5%). Pathology revealed a slight abundance of low-grade (WHO grade I or II) histology (51.5%) compared with 48.5% high-grade (WHO grade III or IV). A greater pool proportion of 0.44 (CI: 0.28-0.61) for gross total resection and 0.19 (CI: 0.10-0.34) for partial resection was found for the TC approach compared with the TS approach. For subtotal resection, the TS approach had a higher pooled proportion (0.47 [CI: 0.40-0.54]) than the TC approach (0.41 [CI: 0.24-0.60]). Postoperative speech deficits (0.04 [95% CI: 0.02-0.11]) and motor deficits (0.10 [95% CI: 0.07-0.15]) were more frequent with the TS approach compared with the TC approach. Our study confirms that the TC approach results in a higher proportion of gross total resection of insular gliomas compared with the TS approach, with fewer postoperative speech and motor deficits.
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.