SynthesisNeurosurgical review2026
Radiosurgical management of trigeminal neuralgia; Differences in outcomes between proximal and distal targeting: Meta-analysis of 1055 patients.
Synthesis 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Trigeminal neuralgia (TN) is a chronic pain disorder characterized by recurrent pain. The most common stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) targets for treatment are proximal and distal; however, there are important discrepancies among authors in the appraisal of the different targets used. A meta-analysis is warranted to evaluate the comparative effectiveness between these targets. Databases were searched until March 6, 2024, to identify studies that compared outcomes for patients with TN treated with SRS between proximal and distal targets. The outcomes included pain relief (PR), pain freedom (PF), facial numbness (FN) and medication de-escalation. Of the 539 screened articles, 6 retrospective cohorts met our inclusion criteria, considering 1055 patients for analysis. Pain relief at 30 days was significantly higher in patients who underwent distal compared to proximal SRS (RR = 1.37, 95%CI: 1.14-1.65; P = 0.001). In pain relief at 90 days, there was no significant difference between targets (RR = 1.11, 95%CI: 0.92-1.34, P = 0.30), nor the rate of PF at last follow-up (RR = 1.24, 95%CI: 0.70-2.20; P = 0.46). The rate of facial numbness did not differ between targets (RR = 1.10, 95%CI: 0.63-1.92, P = 0.75) in both targets. Medication de-escalation rates were not statistically different between targets (RR = 1.29, 95% CI: 0.86-1.94). Our analysis demonstrated significantly greater pain relief at 30 days when distal targeting was used. Given its improved early pain control and comparable safety profile, distal targeting may be preferred when rapid pain relief is a primary treatment objective. However, both targets demonstrated similar efficacy at 90 days and comparable long-term safety outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42762348What 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.