Stereotactic and functional neurosurgery · 2025
Stereotactic Radiosurgery versus Neuroablative Techniques for Medically Refractory Trigeminal Neuralgia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Outcomes.
Название и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Akkara Y, Singh JM, Thorne L, Hill CS
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: There is a lack of evidence to guide the choice between stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and neuroablative procedures for patients with medically refractory trigeminal neuralgia (TN). This meta-analysis aims to identify the outcomes of these interventions for TN.
METHODS: Studies identified through PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase, were cohort studies or clinical trials, had ≥20 participants, and had a ≥12-month follow-up. All participants were ≥16 years old and had primary refractory TN. Studies reported outcomes using the Barrow Neurological Institute (BNI) scale. The Shapiro-Wilk test, Mann-Whitney U test, two-tailed T Test, Spearman's R, and ANCOVA were used to test statistical significance. Screening was done according to PRISMA guidelines. Bias assessment was according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.
RESULTS: 3,288 patients from 37 studies were included (2,537 SRS, 751 neuroablative). Overall reporting of BNI I, II, III, IV, and V was 36.0%, 17.4%, 23.9%, 11.7%, and 10.9%, respectively, in the SRS cohort, and 63.6%, 10.4%, 11.1%, 7.3%, and 7.6%, respectively, in the neuroablative cohort (p < 0.0001). Recurrence was 41.6% in the SRS cohort and 22.5% in the neuroablative cohort (p < 0.001). The neuroablative cohort reported significantly higher rates of hypoesthesia (18.6% vs. 50.5%, p < 0.0001), and minor (19.6% vs. 2.2%, p < 0.0001) and major (3.4% vs. 1.3%, p < 0.001) adverse effects compared to SRS.
CONCLUSION: The findings suggest improved pain relief and reduced recurrence with neuroablative procedures compared to SRS, albeit conferring a higher rate of adverse effects. Neuroablative techniques may be more appropriate for patients with medically refractory TN who are unsuitable for microvascular decompression.
METHODS: Studies identified through PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase, were cohort studies or clinical trials, had ≥20 participants, and had a ≥12-month follow-up. All participants were ≥16 years old and had primary refractory TN. Studies reported outcomes using the Barrow Neurological Institute (BNI) scale. The Shapiro-Wilk test, Mann-Whitney U test, two-tailed T Test, Spearman's R, and ANCOVA were used to test statistical significance. Screening was done according to PRISMA guidelines. Bias assessment was according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.
RESULTS: 3,288 patients from 37 studies were included (2,537 SRS, 751 neuroablative). Overall reporting of BNI I, II, III, IV, and V was 36.0%, 17.4%, 23.9%, 11.7%, and 10.9%, respectively, in the SRS cohort, and 63.6%, 10.4%, 11.1%, 7.3%, and 7.6%, respectively, in the neuroablative cohort (p < 0.0001). Recurrence was 41.6% in the SRS cohort and 22.5% in the neuroablative cohort (p < 0.001). The neuroablative cohort reported significantly higher rates of hypoesthesia (18.6% vs. 50.5%, p < 0.0001), and minor (19.6% vs. 2.2%, p < 0.0001) and major (3.4% vs. 1.3%, p < 0.001) adverse effects compared to SRS.
CONCLUSION: The findings suggest improved pain relief and reduced recurrence with neuroablative procedures compared to SRS, albeit conferring a higher rate of adverse effects. Neuroablative techniques may be more appropriate for patients with medically refractory TN who are unsuitable for microvascular decompression.