ReviewSurgical neurology international2026
Preoperative embolization for glioblastoma surgery: A scoping review.
Review in Surgical neurology international, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Preoperative embolization for glioblastoma (GBM) is a relatively uncommon procedure, and few studies have described its role as an adjunct to surgery. Methods: PubMed, MEDLINE via Ovid, and ScienceDirect were searched following the Preferred Reporting Items for Scoping Reviews guidelines. Embolic agents, clinical contexts for embolization, embolizationcraniotomy interval, surgical resection outcomes, follow-up duration, and clinical outcomes were evaluated. Results: The preliminary search identified 844 records. After screening, 7 studies with 25 patients published between 2006 and 2026 were included in the final review. GBM was embolized under conscious sedation in 15 of 22 cases (68.2%). The transradial access route was the most frequent approach for embolization (15 of 17, 88.2%). Among the 24 patients with available data on embolic agents, liquid embolic agents were used in 13, while coils were used in 11 patients. The interval between embolization and craniotomy was 1 day in 96% cases. All cases underwent embolization without procedure-related complications and subsequently had maximal safe resection of GBM, with a median estimated blood loss of 354 mL. Subgroup analysis by embolic agent revealed a lower median EBL in patients receiving coils alone (295 mL), compared with those receiving liquid embolic agents (402 mL). Four of six patients with available resection data underwent gross total resection of the tumor, and two had near-total resection. In this review, embolization was performed in diverse clinical scenarios, and no established selection criteria were found for preoperative embolization in GBM surgery. Conclusion: Preoperative embolization in GBM surgery has been performed across distinct clinical scenarios. Currently, the literature does not provide universally established guidelines or patient selection criteria for preoperative embolization as an adjunct to hypervascular GBM surgery.
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.