Endoscopic versus open microvascular decompression for trigeminal neuralgia: a systematic review and comparative meta-analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: Microvascular decompression (MVD) is commonly used in the treatment of trigeminal neuralgia (TN) with positive clinical outcomes. Fully endoscopic MVD (E-MVD) has been proposed as an effective minimally invasive alternative, but a comparative review of the two approaches has not been conducted. The authors performed a meta-analysis of studies, comparing patient outcome rates and complications for the open versus the endoscopic technique. METHODS: The PubMed/MEDLINE and Ovid databases were searched for studies published from database inception to 2017. The search terms used included, but were not limited to, "open microvascular decompression," "microvascular decompression for trigeminal neuralgia," and "endoscopic decompression for trigeminal neuralgia." Criteria for inclusion of studies in the meta-analysis were established as follows: adult patients, clinical studies with ≥ 10 patients (excluding case studies to obtain a higher volume of outcome rates), utilization of open MVD or E-MVD to treat TN, craniotomy and retrosigmoid incision, English-language studies, and articles that listed pain relief outcomes (complete, very good, partial, or absent), recurrence rate (number of patients), and complications (paresis, hearing loss, CSF leakage, cerebellar damage, infection, death). Relevant references from the chosen articles were also included. RESULTS: From a larger pool of 1039 studies, 23 articles were selected for review: 13 on traditional MVD and 10 on E-MVD. The total number of patients was 6749, of which 5783 patients (and 5802 procedures) had undergone MVD and 993 patients (and procedures) had undergone E-MVD. Analyzed data included postoperative pain relief outcome (complete or good pain relief vs partial or no pain relief), and rates of recurrence and complications including facial paralysis, weakness, or paresis; hearing loss; auditory and facial nerve damage; cerebrospinal fluid leakage; infection; cerebellar damage; and death.Good pain relief was achieved in 81% of MVD patients and 88% of E-MVD patients, with a mean recurrence rate of 14% and 9%, respectively. Average rates of reported complications were statistically lower in E-MVD than in MVD approaches, including facial paresis or weakness, hearing loss, cerebellar damage, infection, and death, whereas cerebrospinal fluid leakage was similar. The overall incidence of complications was 19% for MVD and 8% for E-MVD. CONCLUSIONS: The reviewed literature revealed similar clinical outcomes with respect to pain relief for MVD and E-MVD. The recurrence rate was lower in E-MVD studies, though not significantly so, and the incidence of complications, notably facial paresis and hearing loss, were statistically higher for MVD than for E-MVD. Based on these results, the use of endoscopy to perform MVD for TN appears to offer at least as good a surgical outcome as the more commonly used open MVD, with the possible added advantages of having a shorter operative time, smaller craniotomy, and lower recurrence rates. The authors advise caution in interpreting these data given the asymmetry in the sample size between the two groups and the relative novelty of the E-MVD approach.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,010 | 0,022 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,017 | 0,029 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,006 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».