Outcomes of Preoperative Transophthalmic Artery Embolization of Meningiomas: A Systematic Review with a Focus on Embolization Agent
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transophthalmic artery embolization of intracranial meningiomas is thought to be associated with a high complication risk. PURPOSE: With advances in endovascular techniques, we systematically reviewed the current literature to improve our understanding of the safety and efficacy of transophthalmic artery embolization of intracranial meningiomas. DATA SOURCES: We performed a systematic search using PubMed from inception until August 3, 2022. STUDY SELECTION: Twelve studies with 28 patients with intracranial meningiomas embolized through the transophthalmic artery were included. DATA ANALYSIS: Baseline and technical characteristics and clinical and safety outcomes were collected. No statistical analysis was conducted. DATA SYNTHESIS: The average age of 27 patients was 49.5 (SD, 13) years. Eighteen (69%) meningiomas were located in the anterior cranial fossa, and 8 (31%), in the sphenoid ridge/wing. Polyvinyl alcohol particles were most commonly (n = 8, 31%) used to preoperatively embolize meningiomas, followed by n-BCA in 6 (23%), Onyx in 6 (23%), Gelfoam in 5 (19%), and coils in 1 patient (4%). Complete embolization of the target meningioma feeders was reported in 8 (47%) of 17 patients; partial embolization, in 6 (32%); and suboptimal embolization, in 3 (18%). The endovascular complication rate was 16% (4 of 25), which included visual impairment in 3 (12%) patients. LIMITATIONS: Selection and publication biases were limitations. CONCLUSIONS: Transophthalmic artery embolization of intracranial meningiomas is feasible but is associated with a non-negligible complication rate.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".