Evidence Hub

Embolizing the middle meningeal artery to treat chronic subdural hematoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Duan K, Xia R, Lv J

Frontiers in surgery, 2026

255,057 participants

Abstract

Background: Comparative studies on the middle meningeal artery (MMA) embolization versus conventional management (CM) to treat chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH) yield inconsistent findings.

Objective: This systematic review sought to meta-analyze studies comparing MMA embolization versus CM for treating CSDH.

Methods: Terms including "hematoma", "subdural", "chronic", "meningeal arteries", "embolization", and "therapeutic" were applied to search PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases from their inception to July 11, 2025. After independent reading, screening, and evaluation by two researchers, data were analyzed and processed using RevMan v5.4.

Results: Initially, 1,883 articles were retrieved. After eliminating 692 duplicates and excluding 1,087 articles that are conference abstracts, letters, or have ineligible research objectives, interventions, or outcomes, 104 articles were identified as potentially eligible. These articles were subsequently screened according to the eligibility criteria, and 20 studies were ultimately included. According to the meta-analysis, in the 20 studies involving 255,057 patients, 181,993 (71.4%) and 73,064 (28.6%) patients received MMA embolization and CM, respectively. MMA embolization performed better than CM in terms of treatment failure (relative risk [RR] = 0.40 [0.18-0.87], P = 0.007), recurrence rate (RR = 0.43 [0.32-0.57], P = 0.15), and complication rate (RR = 0.91 [0.77-1.08], P = 0.06). No difference was…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 255,057 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free