ArticleBMJ surgery, interventions, & health technologies2025
Middle meningeal artery embolization for chronic subdural hematoma.
Article in BMJ surgery, interventions, & health technologies, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To assess recurrence rates, procedural outcomes and patient outcomes following middle meningeal artery (MMA) embolization for the treatment of chronic subdural hematomas (cSDH). Design: Retrospective case series. Setting: Two tertiary neurosurgical referral centers in Sydney, Australia. Participants: 13 adult patients (mean age±SD, 68.5±9.5 years, 11 male) with 17 cSDHs (measuring 13.8±4.5 mm) undergoing MMA embolization alone (8/13) or with surgical evacuation (5/13) for cSDH. There were no exclusion criteria. Interventions: Embolization was performed via femoral access, using either liquid embolic, polyvinyl alcohol particles, coils, or a combination of agents. Embolization was done either as the sole treatment or with surgical evacuation. Main outcome measures: Primary outcomes were recurrence or increase in hematoma size requiring surgical evacuation. Secondary outcomes included procedural complications, hematoma size at follow-up, and patient clinical outcomes. Results: No procedural complications occurred. 12 patients were discharged home at baseline neurological function, and one was discharged to an aged care facility with significant disability. At follow-up (mean=8.7 weeks), combined embolization with surgical evacuation led to hematoma size reduction (14.3±2.6 mm to 5.7±6.5 mm, p<0.01), while embolization alone showed a stable hematoma size (13.3±5.7 mm to 10.0±8.8 mm, p=0.20). Recurrence or increase in hematoma size requiring surgical evacuation occurred in 2/13 (15.4%) patients, one of whom received only unilateral embolization, and the other received partial coiling due to the presence of dangerous collaterals. Conclusions: MMA embolization is a safe procedure that may reduce recurrence rates of cSDH when used as an adjunct to surgery or as a sole treatment. Possible reasons for treatment failure may include unilateral embolization, partial coiling, and absence of distal penetration of embolic agent. Large randomized control trials are currently in progress to assess the safety and efficacy of MMA embolization for this purpose.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.