Endovascular vs surgical treatment of sigmoid sinus diverticulum causing pulsatile tinnitus: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IntroductionSigmoid sinus diverticulum (SSD) has been increasingly reported as a cause of pulsatile tinnitus (PT). While both endovascular and surgical treatments have been used, there is a lack of consensus on the treatment modality to treat SSD. We conducted a systematic review of the available literature to compare the clinical outcomes and safety of endovascular versus surgical approaches for treating SSD.MethodsA systematic review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses to identify studies encompassing the management of SSD. Studies reporting the clinical outcomes and safety of endovascular or surgical treatments for SSD between January 2000 and January 2023 were included. Results were characterized using descriptive statistics.ResultsEndovascular treatment (EVT) was reported by 17 articles, yielding 26 patients with 27 diverticula. Surgical treatment was reported by 20 articles, yielding 105 patients with 107 diverticula. EVT led to complete or near-complete resolution in all patients with SSD and PT. Complications occurred in 3.7% (1/27) with a return to baseline after 2 months. There were no permanent complications from EVT. Surgical treatment resulted in complete resolution in 77.6% (83/107) of cases, incomplete resolution in 11.2% (12/107), and no resolution in 11.2% (12/107). Significant complications occurred in 9.3% (10/107) of the surgical-treated patients.ConclusionEVT in patients with PT and venous diverticulum appears more effective and safer than surgical treatment, but large studies are lacking. Studies directly comparing endovascular and surgical treatment are needed.
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 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".