Outcomes of trigeminal nerve microsurgical internal neurolysis for trigeminal neuralgia without neurovascular conflict: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Arthur R Kurzbuch, Jonathan R Ellenbogen, Naureen Keric, Volker Tronnier, Constantin Tuleasca
{"title":"Outcomes of trigeminal nerve microsurgical internal neurolysis for trigeminal neuralgia without neurovascular conflict: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Arthur R Kurzbuch, Jonathan R Ellenbogen, Naureen Keric, Volker Tronnier, Constantin Tuleasca","doi":"10.1007/s10143-025-03833-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Trigeminal neuralgia (TN) without neurovascular conflict poses a therapeutic challenge. Microsurgical internal neurolysis (IN), also known as nerve combing, has emerged as a viable surgical option when microvascular decompression (MVD) is not indicated. This systematic review and meta-analysis, conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, included eight case series with a total of 193 patients. Pain relief outcomes were assessed using the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) criteria and the Barrow Neurological Institute (BNI) pain intensity score. Excellent pain relief (UCSF criteria) was achieved in 76.3% (67.4-85.2%) of patients, while 9.9% (3.6-16.2%) had a good outcome, and 5.9% (1-10.9%) experienced poor outcomes. Based on the BNI scale, successful pain relief (BNI I-II) was observed in 82.2% (72.2-92.2%) of patients. Hypoesthesia occurred in 49.2% (17.5-81.0%) of cases, while pain recurrence was reported in 10.2% (4.8-15.7%). Our findings, demonstrating high rates of pain relief, suggest that IN can be viable therapeutic alternative for patients with TN in the absence of neurovascular conflict. However, the risk of hypoesthesia highlights not only the importance of careful patient selection but also the significance of the microsurgical technique -specifically, the extent of disruption and whether the cut is longitudinal or transversal-both of which likely account for the wide variability reported, ranging from 17.5% to 81%. According to the GRADE framework, the overall certainty of the evidence was rated as very low, primarily due to the inclusion of non-randomized studies, predominantly high risk of bias, and considerable variability in results across studies. Further comparative studies are necessary to refine surgical indications and optimize outcomes for this patient population.</p>","PeriodicalId":19184,"journal":{"name":"Neurosurgical Review","volume":"48 1","pages":"678"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurosurgical Review","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-025-03833-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Trigeminal neuralgia (TN) without neurovascular conflict poses a therapeutic challenge. Microsurgical internal neurolysis (IN), also known as nerve combing, has emerged as a viable surgical option when microvascular decompression (MVD) is not indicated. This systematic review and meta-analysis, conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, included eight case series with a total of 193 patients. Pain relief outcomes were assessed using the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) criteria and the Barrow Neurological Institute (BNI) pain intensity score. Excellent pain relief (UCSF criteria) was achieved in 76.3% (67.4-85.2%) of patients, while 9.9% (3.6-16.2%) had a good outcome, and 5.9% (1-10.9%) experienced poor outcomes. Based on the BNI scale, successful pain relief (BNI I-II) was observed in 82.2% (72.2-92.2%) of patients. Hypoesthesia occurred in 49.2% (17.5-81.0%) of cases, while pain recurrence was reported in 10.2% (4.8-15.7%). Our findings, demonstrating high rates of pain relief, suggest that IN can be viable therapeutic alternative for patients with TN in the absence of neurovascular conflict. However, the risk of hypoesthesia highlights not only the importance of careful patient selection but also the significance of the microsurgical technique -specifically, the extent of disruption and whether the cut is longitudinal or transversal-both of which likely account for the wide variability reported, ranging from 17.5% to 81%. According to the GRADE framework, the overall certainty of the evidence was rated as very low, primarily due to the inclusion of non-randomized studies, predominantly high risk of bias, and considerable variability in results across studies. Further comparative studies are necessary to refine surgical indications and optimize outcomes for this patient population.

三叉神经显微外科内松解术治疗无神经血管冲突三叉神经痛的疗效:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
三叉神经痛(TN)没有神经血管冲突提出了治疗的挑战。显微外科内神经松解术(IN),也称为神经梳理,已成为一种可行的手术选择,当微血管减压(MVD)不需要。根据系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南进行的系统评价和荟萃分析包括8个病例系列,共193例患者。疼痛缓解结果采用加州大学旧金山分校(UCSF)标准和巴罗神经学研究所(BNI)疼痛强度评分进行评估。76.3%(67.4-85.2%)的患者获得了极好的疼痛缓解(UCSF标准),9.9%(3.6-16.2%)的患者获得了良好的结果,5.9%(1-10.9%)的患者获得了不良的结果。根据BNI量表,82.2%(72.2-92.2%)的患者疼痛缓解(BNI I-II)成功。49.2%(17.5 ~ 81.0%)的患者出现感觉减退,10.2%(4.8 ~ 15.7%)的患者出现疼痛复发。我们的研究结果表明,在没有神经血管冲突的情况下,IN可以作为TN患者可行的治疗选择。然而,感觉不足的风险不仅强调了仔细选择患者的重要性,也强调了显微手术技术的重要性——具体来说,断裂的程度以及切口是纵向还是横向的——这两者都可能解释了报道的广泛差异,范围从17.5%到81%。根据GRADE框架,证据的总体确定性被评为非常低,主要是由于纳入了非随机研究,主要是高偏倚风险,以及研究结果的相当大的可变性。进一步的比较研究是必要的,以完善手术指征和优化结果的患者群体。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Neurosurgical Review
Neurosurgical Review 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
7.10%
发文量
191
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The goal of Neurosurgical Review is to provide a forum for comprehensive reviews on current issues in neurosurgery. Each issue contains up to three reviews, reflecting all important aspects of one topic (a disease or a surgical approach). Comments by a panel of experts within the same issue complete the topic. By providing comprehensive coverage of one topic per issue, Neurosurgical Review combines the topicality of professional journals with the indepth treatment of a monograph. Original papers of high quality are also welcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信