Evidence Hub

Good clinical outcomes and the necessity of CSF drainage in patients undergoing simultaneous biopsy and endoscopic third ventriculostomy in the region of pineal tumors: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Marcelo Porto Sousa, Stefeson Gomes Cabral, Filipe Virgílio Ribeiro, Hugo Nunes Pustilnik, Márcio Yuri Ferreira, Gabriel Verly, João Pedro Bittar Sanches, Nelson Snyder Crespo Zavala et al.

Journal of clinical neuroscience, 2024

390 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Due to their delicate and deep-seated location, tumors in the pineal region of the brain pose exceptional challenges in neurosurgical management. Highly precise procedures have become crucial to address these complexities, such as the simultaneous performance of biopsy and endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV). Our aim was to assess the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of simultaneous biopsy and ETV for treating patients with pineal region tumors.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for English studies from January 2000 to February 2024, following Cochrane and PRISMA guidelines. Eligible studies encompassed a minimum of four patients and examined at least one of the following outcomes: good clinical outcomes and the necessity of shunt placement. Single proportion analysis with 95% confidence intervals was conducted under a random-effects model, employing the I2 statistic to assess heterogeneity. Additionally, publication bias was evaluated using the ROBINS-I tool.

RESULTS

After a meticulous selection process, eighteen studies involving 390 patients were included in the analysis. Overall, good clinical outcomes were observed in 131 out of 147 patients, representing a rate of 92 % (95 % CI: 84 % to 100 %, I2 = 62 %) through random effects analysis. Subgroup analysis showed that children exhibited a notably high rate of good clinical outcomes, reaching 100 % (95 % CI: 96 % to 100 %, I2 = 0 %). Regarding the need for shunt placement, out of…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, 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: 390 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