MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 4358037: Barriers and Strategies in Neurovascular Care for Ruptured and Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms During Awake Craniotomy: A Systematic Review

2025· article· en· W4415792427 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Wagner Rios-García, Sashenka Silva-Jiménez, Tamara Silva

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntracranial Aneurysms: Treatment and Complications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeurovascular bundleObservational studyCraniotomyMEDLINESystematic reviewMultidisciplinary approach

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Awake craniotomy for ruptured and unruptured intracranial aneurysms poses distinct neurovascular challenges. Identifying key barriers and strategies is essential to improve outcomes, yet current evidence is limited, underscoring the need for systematic evaluation. Research Questions: What are the main barriers and strategies in the neurovascular care of ruptured and unruptured intracranial aneurysms during awake craniotomy? Methods: A systematic search was conducted on May 5, 2025, in PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science, without language restrictions. This was supplemented by gray literature identified from reference lists and the first 10 pages of Google Scholar. The review followed PRISMA 2020 guidelines, and study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Two trained reviewers independently screened studies after pilot training. Data synthesis was descriptive. Results: The final analysis included 12 observational studies with 119 patients (58.4% unruptured, 25% ruptured, 8.3% mixed, and 8.3% unreported status), primarily in adults(91.7%) at university hospitals (75%). All cases reported "good" surgical outcomes, though 33.3% had transient or permanent sequelae. The most prevalent barriers were intraoperative patient discomfort (50%), anesthetic management challenges (41.7%), and lack of specialized training or advanced equipment (25%). Successful strategies included multidisciplinary team collaboration (58.3%), real-time functional monitoring via awake testing (100%), and intraoperative ultrasound (33.3%). Studies originated from the USA (41.7%), Europe (25%), and Asia (16.7%), revealing geographic disparities in resource availability. These findings demonstrate the procedure's feasibility while highlighting the need for standardized protocols to address technical and logistical challenges. Study quality assessed by tool NOS revealed: High quality (33.3%), Moderate quality (50%), and Low quality (16.7%). Conclusions: Awake craniotomy is a feasible and promising approach for managing intracranial aneurysms. However, its widespread adoption is hindered by significant implementation barriers. Further high-quality studies are needed to validate current strategies, evaluate outcomes, and ensure their safe integration into neurovascular care.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.082
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.082
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.008
Bibliometrics0.0120.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicIntracranial Aneurysms: Treatment and Complications→French-language works237,207→