ArticleNeurosurgical review2026
Comparative analysis of intraoperative and postoperative outcomes in primary vs. revision meningioma surgery: A propensity score-matched study.
Article in Neurosurgical review, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSurgical resection is a critical intervention for meningiomas, but revision surgeries are challenging due to scar tissue, altered anatomy, and increased physiological stress. Our study evaluates differences in intraoperative and short-term postoperative outcomes between patients undergoing primary and revision meningioma surgery.
methodsA retrospective analysis (2011-2023) was conducted using 1:3 propensity score matching with a 0.2 caliper. Matching was based on age, sex, tumor diameter, number of comorbidities, ASA score, and WHO grade. Multivariable logistic regression, controlling for extent of resection, assessed whether revision surgery predicted key intra- and postoperative outcomes.
resultsOf 362 patients included in the final analysis, 263 (72.7%) underwent primary surgery and 99 (27.3%) underwent revision surgery. There were no differences in matched characteristics or tumor location among the groups. There were no significant differences in operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), or change in modified Rankin Scale (mRS) or Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) between pre- and postoperative measurements. Surgical complications were observed in 0% of revision cases and 0.7% of primary cases (p = 1.00). Neurological complications occurred in 25.3% of the revision cases and 29.2% in the primary cases (p = 0.45), while non-neurological complications occurred in 16.2% vs. 16.0% of patients, respectively (p = 0.97). Length of hospital stay (LOS) and readmission rates trended higher for revision surgeries (4.7 vs. 3.7 days, p = 0.15 and 10.1% vs. 6.2%, p = 0.19, respectively). Revision surgery was not a significant predictor of operative time, EBL, LOS, postoperative mRS, postoperative KPS, changes in mRS or KPS from baseline, neurological or non-neurological complications, or readmission.
conclusionOur propensity score-matched analysis indicates that revision meningioma surgery achieves comparable intraoperative and short-term postoperative outcomes to primary resection. These findings reassure that revision surgery does not inherently increase operative risk when performed with appropriate patient selection.
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.