Evidence Hub

Initial data from the prospectively randomized G-MEMBRANE trial and systematic review on the embolization of the middle meningeal artery in the treatment of chronic subdural hematomas

Goelz L, Singheiser S, Hoenning A, Mutze S, Stengel D, Sitz M, Schuss P, Lemcke J

Scientific reports, 2026

93 participants

Abstract

Middle meningeal artery embolization (MMAE) is a promising treatment, as surgical treatment of chronic subdural hematoma (cSDH) still exhibits high recurrence rates. G-MEMBRANE is a single-center, investigator-initiated, prospectively randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluating the efficacy of adjuvant MMAE. Patients with cSDH requiring surgery were randomly assigned to either surgery plus MMAE or surgery alone. The primary endpoint was cSDH recurrence within 3 months of follow-up. Assuming a risk difference of 20%, an interim analysis was planned after the enrollment of 77 patients. A systematic literature review identified all completed RCTs published between 2015 and 2025. The interim analysis included 93 randomized patients, 64 of whom were available for primary endpoint analysis. The drop-out and lost-to-follow-up rate of 19.1% in the control group and 43.5% in the intervention group were high. Mean age was 74.6 ± 13.3 years, 66.7% patients were male. In the intervention group, 5/26 patients (19.2%) developed recurrent cSDH, compared to 9/38 (23.7%) in the control group (p = 0.672). Revision surgeries were performed in 0% in the intervention group and in 4 (10.5%) of the control group (p = 0.140). No adverse events were related to MMAE. Eight RCTs were included in the systematic review with significant results reported in two large multicenter studies and two small single-center studies regarding "recurrences/reoperation." The small risk difference between the study…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. 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: 93 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