Skip to main content
The Egyptian Journal of Neurology, Psychiatry and Neurosurgery
Download PDF

Equiosmolar doses of hypertonic saline versus mannitol for brain relaxation in patients undergoing elective craniotomies: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

The Egyptian Journal of Neurology, Psychiatry and Neurosurgery volume 58, Article number: 142 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Hypertonic saline and mannitol are hyperosmolar agents frequently used to lower ICP and relax the brain during surgeries. Several methods have been used to achieve a good and relaxed brain, such as hyperventilation, cerebrospinal fluid drainage, head position correction, and administration of hyperosmolar agents. Comparing equiosmolar doses between hypertonic saline and mannitol in patients undergoing elective craniotomies is important to further notice the differences in several outcomes. This study aims to compare the outcome of hypertonic saline versus mannitol on brain relaxation in patients undergoing elective craniotomy.

Results

10 articles from 2007 to 2021 were included. Hypertonic saline is associated with better brain relaxation (OR  = 1.84, 95% CI 1.31–2.59; P = 0.001) but significantly increase blood natrium level, both serum and arterial (MD = 3.03, 95% CI 1.70–4.36; P =  < 0.001 and MD = 7.14, 95% CI 0.04–14.24; P =  < 0.001, respectively). Mannitol was associated with increased fluid input and urine output (SMD = − 0.56, 95% CI − 0.98 to − 0.15; P =  < 0.001 and SMD = − 0.96, 95% CI − 1.42 to − 0.50; P =  < 0.001, respectively). Serum osmolality and hemodynamic parameters difference was insignificant.

Conclusions

Hypertonic saline is associated with significantly better brain relaxation score and increased blood sodium level without increase in urine. This may prove to be clinically significant in patients with electrolyte imbalance.

Introduction

Cerebral relaxation is an important component of neuroanesthesia [1]. A good, relaxed brain improves surgical access and widens the surgical view for the surgeon [2]. It minimises retraction, reduces local hypoperfusion and cerebral ischemia, and, therefore, minimises the risk of complication and postoperative neurological deficit [1, 3]. Several methods have been used to achieve a good and relaxed brain, such as hyperventilation, cerebrospinal fluid drainage, head position correction, and administration of hyperosmolar agents [4]. Mannitol is the most popular hyperosmolar agent used for osmotherapy [5]. Hyperosmolar agents such as mannitol and hypertonic saline exert their effect via two mechanisms [6, 7]. Fast-acting effect through rheological effects, plasma expansion, and delayed effect through its osmotic action. This increases plasma osmolarity to shift fluid from the brain parenchyma into the intravascular space. Both solutions are routinely used in neurosurgery to treat intracranial hypertension. Mannitol is associated with various adverse events, such as hypovolemia, nephrotoxicity, and rebound phenomenon [8]. Hypertonic saline, due to its higher sodium content, is also associated with several adverse events, such as metabolic acidosis and central pontine myelinolysis (CPM) [9, 10]. There have been no reports of CPM after the use of HS in reducing ICP to date.

Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been done, aiming to compare both solutions in their safety and efficacy. There were two meta-analyses initiated in 2015 and 2017 favouring hypertonic saline as the superior agent to reduce ICP and relax the brain. Since then, there have been 4 new RCTs conducted [5, 11,12,13]. We aimed to update the comparison of these solutions on their safety and efficacy in producing brain relaxation, along with their effect on fluid status, sodium content, and hemodynamic parameters.

Methods

This systematic review and meta-analysis were performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [14].

Search strategy

We searched Scopus, Cochrane Library databases, ScienceDirect, and Proquest for RCTs comparing equiosmolar doses of hypertonic saline versus mannitol for brain relaxation in patients undergoing elective craniotomies. We used Medical Subjects Headings (MESH) terms and keywords as follows: “mannitol,” “hypertonic saline,” “brain relaxation,” “osmotherapy,” “craniotomy,” and “neurosurgery”. No other restrictions were applied. The search commenced in early July 2022.

Eligibility and selection criteria

Two reviewers searched and independently screened the journals. Criteria of inclusion include the following: (1) studies have to be Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs); (2) Equiosmolar doses of hypertonic saline versus mannitol have to be used; (3) Patients undergoing elective craniotomy surgeries of all brain pathologies; (4) reporting relevant outcomes; (5) written in English; (5) full text is available.

Two authors extracted the data needed independently. Disagreements were resolved through discussion. One author assessed the risk of bias using Cochrane risk of bias through Review Manager [15]. Another author rated the quality of evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) through the GRADEpro GDT Web app [16, 17]. Risk of bias table and a summary of findings with GRADE recommendation were generated.

Data synthesis and analysis

The primary outcome observed is the results of brain relaxation. Brain relaxation was assessed using a 4-point scale (perfectly relaxed, satisfactory relaxed, firm brain, bulging brain) or a 3-point scale (tight, appropriate, and soft). We categorised “perfectly relaxed,” “satisfactory relaxed,” “appropriate,” and “soft” as good brain relaxation and generated dichotomous results. The outcome was assessed using the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Secondary outcomes were as follows: total urine output and fluid input were assessed using standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI, serum sodium, arterial sodium, plasma osmolality, max mean arterial pressure (MAP) and max central venous pressure (CVP) were assessed using mean difference (MD) with 95% CI. Subgroup analyses were conducted on total urine output according to the different doses used.

A P value of < 0.05 is considered statistically significant, and 95% confidence intervals were used. Sensitivity analyses were commenced by removing suspicious studies to find the source of heterogeneity. Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 and P value for Chi-square. Publication bias was analysed using a visual inspection of the funnel plot. A random-effects model was used in outcomes with high heterogeneity, presented by an I2 value of > 50%. We used Review Manager version 5.4 to process our meta-analysis and generate forest plots.

Results

Trial characteristics

A total of 181 Articles were identified initially. 12 duplicate studies were removed. 13 studies were included after screening the title and abstract. 11 full-text studies were thoroughly reviewed. The final 10 RCTs that were published from 2007 to 2021 were included in the study, as represented in Fig. 1. A total of 745 patients were included, consisting of 371 (49.7%) males and 374 (50.2%) females. Of the 745 patients, 373 (50%) were allocated in the HS group, while 372 (49.9%) were allocated in the mannitol group.

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA flow chart to visualize the study selection process

Full size image

Risk of bias assessment and quality of evidence

The risk of bias assessment results is shown in Fig. 2. All studies included had an overall moderate risk of bias. Of the 10 studies included, 6 studies defined random sequence generation using computer-generated randomization or computerized random number generation and were deemed a low risk of bias [2, 5, 11, 13, 18, 19]. 4 of the studies did not define the sequence generation and were deemed the unclear risk of bias [12, 20,21,22]. One of the studies was rated with a high risk of bias in the domain of incomplete outcome data due to it having an unequal number of patients in each group with no explanation [18].

Fig. 2
figure 2

A Risk of bias assessment; + indicates a low risk of bias; −indicates high risk of bias; ? indicate an unclear risk of bias. B Risk of bias graph, presented as percentages

Full size image

The GRADE evidence profile was generated using the GRADEproGDT web app, and the summary of findings alongside can be found in Table 1. Quality of evidence ranges from very low to moderate; moderate for brain relaxation, total urine output, serum sodium, and fluid input; low for arterial sodium and max CVP; very low for serum osmolality and max MAP. We downgraded the outcomes for “risk of bias,” “inconsistency,” and “imprecision.”

Table 1 Detailed participants for each outcomes including their quality of evidence
Full size table

Brain relaxation

All 10 studies reported this outcome with a total sample size of 735 patients.[2, 5, 11,12,13, 18,19,20,21,22]. We used a fixed-effects model for this outcome. The outcome favours HS to achieve a better brain relaxation score when compared to mannitol with a significant relationship. There was no significant heterogeneity observed.

Total urine output

Data on urine output were reported on 7 studies with a total sample size of 615 patients [2, 11, 18,19,20,21,22]. We chose to use standardized means difference with 95% CIs as the pooled statistic. The heterogeneity was high, and a random-effects model was used for this outcome. Mannitol is associated with significantly increased total urine output when compared with HS.

To identify the source of heterogeneity, we performed a subgroup analysis based on the doses used. In the subgroup analyses, we found low heterogeneity in high doses and significant heterogeneity in low–moderate doses. The results of these subgroup analyses show a significant increase in total urine output when using mannitol in comparison with HS, regardless of the dose.

Fluid input

Among the studies, 6 studies reported this outcome [2, 18,19,20,21,22]. HS is associated with significantly less total fluid input when compared to mannitol. Heterogeneity was high, and a random-effects model was used.

Serum osmolality

Out of the 10 studies, only 3 studies reported this outcome [18,19,20]. The pooled data show no significant difference in serum osmolality between both solutions when used in elective craniotomies. High heterogeneity was observed, and a random-effects model was used.

Sodium level

Data on sodium level were observed in 7 studies with different modes of measurements. 4 of the studies measure serum sodium level [11,12,13, 18]. 2 of the studies measure arterial sodium level [11, 20]. 1 study reports both serum and arterial sodium level [19].

HS is associated with a significant increase in serum sodium level in comparison with mannitol with moderate heterogeneity. A fixed-effects model was used. HS is also associated with a significant increase in sodium level when measured through arterial blood samples. Heterogeneity was high, and a random-effects model was used.

Max MAP

Only 3 studies reported this outcome [2, 11, 20]. The pooled data show no significant difference in maximum MAP between the two groups. Heterogeneity was high, and a random-effects model was used.

Max CVP

Data on max CVP were observed on 5 studies [2, 11, 18,19,20]. No significant difference was found between the two solutions. Heterogeneity was high, and a random-effects model was used. Each analysis result was provided as a forest plot shown in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3
figure 3

A Brain relaxation, B urine output, C fluid input, D serum osmolality, E serum sodium level, F arterial blood sodium level, G max MAP, H max CVP

Full size image

Discussion

This meta-analysis is an update on Shao's previous meta-analyses in 2015 and Fang in 2017 [23, 24]. We included 4 new RCTs that have been published, since the last meta-analysis was initiated to date. Our findings show that HS is associated with a significant increase in producing better brain relaxation compared to mannitol. This finding is in line with previous results by Shao and Fang. We also found significantly fewer total urine output and fluid input, no difference in serum osmolality, a significant increase in serum and arterial sodium, and no difference in max MAP in HS group when compared to mannitol. These findings are also consistent with previous studies [23, 24]. However, we added 1 new study and found no significant difference in maximum CVP between both solutions. This is different from a previous study by Fang, where they found a slightly greater reduction of CVP when compared with HS [24].

This study used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence to provide an objective view of our certainty in the outcome. The evidence quality ranges from very low to moderate. We downgraded our evidence due to heterogeneity we cannot identify, small sample sizes, and a high risk of bias.

Our meta-analysis showed that HS is associated with a significantly better brain relaxation score when compared to mannitol. Hypertonic saline theoretically has a higher reflection coefficient of 1 when compared to mannitol (0.9). The higher reflection coefficient means that hypertonic saline is more impermeable to the biological membrane, our blood–brain barrier (BBB), and can exert a better osmotic driving force to draw out water from interstitial tissue to intravascular space [6, 7]. This also means that theoretically, HS will not cause rebound ICP increase, an adverse effect of long use of mannitol, as HS will not seep through the BBB and draw water to, instead of from the brain tissue [8]. This, however, only applies to an intact BBB. Brain tumours and other space-occupying lesions (SOLs) will cause peritumoral oedema and compromise BBB [25].

Significantly fewer urine output seen in HS might be explained by the high sodium value of hypertonic saline. A higher sodium value in HS might stimulate the hypothalamus to secrete an antidiuretic hormone, exerting its antidiuretic effect [6, 7]. The fewer urine output translates to less fluid needed to be administered intraoperatively, as we can see in this study, where HS is also associated with significantly fewer fluid input.

The high sodium content, however, might be a double-edged sword. Our study shows that HS is associated with significantly increased blood sodium levels, both by serum and arterial measurement. This may prove to be clinically significant in patients with electrolyte abnormalities. A study measuring sodium level in traumatic shock patients given hypertonic saline shows that all sodium levels return to baseline within 24 h, and most within 4 h [26]. One study by Ankush also shows sodium level return to baseline value in 48 h [12]. Safety concern regarding the use of HTS is centered around the consequences of an acute hyperosmolar state. Rapid correction of sodium in a previously hyponatremic patient may produce central pontine myelinolysis, otherwise known as osmotic demyelination syndrome (ODS) [6, 7, 9]. This condition is, however, best treated by prevention of rapid correction of sodium through good preoperative evaluation and blood electrolyte workup. There have been no reports of CPM after the use of HS in reducing ICP to date. Another concern is rapid initial blood volume expansion in patients with acute heart failure and pulmonary edema leading to acute worsening of respective diseases [6, 7]. This adverse effect is due to hyperosmolarity and affects both HTS and mannitol. This may be prevented with the addition of diuretics.

Our study had some limitations. First, the brain relaxation score is a subjective measurement and, therefore, is prone to bias and subjective views. Ideal and objective measurement is ICP values, but in our included studies, only two provided the measurement, albeit only in figures [5, 11]. Second, we cannot identify sources of heterogeneity in some outcomes. Third, small sample sizes and a small number of studies may limit the power of our study.

Conclusions

This study demonstrated that HS might have a greater effect on producing good brain relaxation when compared to mannitol in patients undergoing elective craniotomies under multiple brain pathologies. HS is associated with fewer total urine output and fluid input. However, HS is associated with increased blood sodium levels, and its use and safety in patients with electrolyte abnormalities warrant further investigation. Both solutions have no significant difference in serum osmolality or hemodynamic parameters. However, this study limitations requires further high-quality RCTs with an objective assessment of brain relaxation to confirm the findings.

Availability of data and materials

The data used and analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

HS:

Hypertonic saline

MAP:

Mean arterial pressure

CVP:

Central venous pressure

BBB:

Blood–brain barrier

SOL:

Space-occupying lesion

References

  1. Hans P, Bonhomme V. Why we still use intravenous drugs as the basic regimen for neurosurgical anaesthesia. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2006;19(5):498–503.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hernandez-Palazon J, Fuentes-Garcia D, Domenech-Asensi P, Piqueras-Perez C, Falcon-Aran L, Burguillos-Lopez S. Equiosmolar solutions of hypertonic saline and mannitol do not impair blood coagulation during elective intracranial surgery. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 2017;29(1):8–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Li J, Gelb AW, Flexman AM, Ji F, Meng L. Definition, evaluation, and management of brain relaxation during craniotomy. Br J Anaesth. 2016;116(6):759–69.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kulikov AS, Kurbasov AA, Lubnin AY. Brain tissue relaxation in craniotomy: a modern view of the perennial problem. Zhurnal Voprosy Nejrokhirurgii Imeni NN Burdenko. 2019;83(6):124–30.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Sokhal N, Rath GP, Chaturvedi A, Singh M, Dash HH. Comparison of 20% mannitol and 3% hypertonic saline on intracranial pressure and systemic hemodynamics. J Clin Neurosci. 2017;42:148–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Mason A, Malik A, Ginglen JG. Hypertonic Fluids. Clin Fluid Ther Perioper Setting. 2022;9:73–81.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Strandvik GF. Hypertonic saline in critical care: A review of the literature and guidelines for use in hypotensive states and raised intracranial pressure. Anaesthesia. 2009;64(9):990–1003.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Palma L, Bruni G, Fiaschi AI, Mariottini A. Passage of mannitol into the brain around gliomas: a potential cause of rebound phenomenon. A study on 21 patients. J Neurosurg Sci. 2006;50(3):63–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kleinschmidt-Demasters BK, Norenberg MD. Rapid correction of hyponatremia causes demyelination: relation to central pontine myelinolysis. Science. 1981;211(4486):1068–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Tyagi R, Donaldson K, Loftus CM, Jallo J. Hypertonic saline: a clinical review. Neurosurg Rev. 2007;30(4):277–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ali A, Tetik A, Sabanci PA, Altun D, Sivrikoz N, Abdullah T, et al. Comparison of 3% hypertonic saline and 20% mannitol for reducing intracranial pressure in patients undergoing supratentorial brain tumor surgery: a randomized: double-blind clinical trial. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 2018;30(2):171–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Singla A, Mathew P, Jangra K, Gupta S, Soni S. A comparison of hypertonic saline and mannitol on intraoperative brain relaxation in patients with raised intracranial pressure during supratentorial tumors resection: a randomized control trial. Neurol India. 2020;68(1):141–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Barik AK, Agrawal S, Gupta P, Kumari R. Evaluation of equiosmolar 20% mannitol, 3% hypertonic saline and 8.4% sodium bicarbonate on intraoperative brain relaxation and hemodynamic parameters in patients undergoing craniotomy for supratentorial tumors: a prospective randomized study. Minerva Anestesiol. 2021;87(9):997–1005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339(7716):332–6.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Higgins J, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page M, et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions | Cochrane Training. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current. Accessed 15 Aug 2022.

  16. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):383–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Jaeschke R, Guyatt GH, Dellinger P, Schünemann H, Levy MM, Kunz R, Norris S, Bion J. Use of GRADE grid to reach decisions on clinical practice guidelines when consensus is elusive. BMJ. 2008;31:337.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Dostal P, Dostalova V, Schreiberova J, Tyll T, Habalova J, Cerny V, et al. A comparison of equivolume, equiosmolar solutions of hypertonic saline and mannitol for brain relaxation in patients undergoing elective intracranial tumor surgery: a randomized clinical trial. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 2015;27(1):51–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Raghava A, Bidkar PU, Satya Prakash MVS, Hemavathy B. Comparison of equiosmolar concentrations of hypertonic saline and mannitol for intraoperative lax brain in patients undergoing craniotomy. Surg Neurol Int. 2015;6(1):73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Rozet I, Tontisirin N, Muangman S, Vavilala MS, Souter MJ, Lee LA, et al. Effect of equiosmolar solutions of mannitol versus hypertonic saline on intraoperative brain relaxation and electrolyte balance. Anesthesiology. 2007;107(5):697–704.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Wu C-T, Chen L-C, Kuo C-P, Ju D-T, Borel CO, Cherng C-H, Wong C-S. A comparison of 3% hypertonic saline and mannitol for brain relaxation during elective supratentorial brain tumor surgery. Anesth Analg. 2010;110(3):903–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sofi K, Wani A, Malik Z, Mir S, Naqash I. A prospective, randomized, double blind study to compare the effects of equiosmolar solutions of 3% hypertonic saline and 20% mannitol on reduction of brain-bulk during elective craniotomy for supratentorial brain tumor resection. Anesth Essays Res. 2014;8(3):388.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Shao L, Hong F, Zou Y, Hao X, Hou H, Tian M. Hypertonic saline for brain relaxation and intracranial pressure in patients undergoing neurosurgical procedures: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(1):e0117314.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Fang J, Yang Y, Wang W, Liu Y, An T, Zou M, et al. Comparison of equiosmolar hypertonic saline and mannitol for brain relaxation during craniotomies: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Neurosurg Rev. 2017;41(4):945–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Platten M, Wick W. Blood–brain barrier and brain edema. Handb Clin Neurol. 2012;1(104):53–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Holcroft JW, Vassar MJ, Perry CA, Gannaway WL, Kramer GC. Use of a 7.5% NaCl/6% Dextran 70 solution in the resuscitation of injured patients in the emergency room. Prog Clin Biol Res. 1989;299:331–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

The authors declared no financial support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Medicine, Udayana University, Denpasar, Indonesia

    Theodorus Kevin Putra Johansyah, Jeremy Jonathan, I. G. A. A. Andra Yusari, John Nolan & Alif Hakim Alamsyah

  2. Department of Neurosurgery, Oen Hospital, Sukoharjo, Indonesia

    Geizar Arsika Ramadhana

Authors
  1. Theodorus Kevin Putra Johansyah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeremy Jonathan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. I. G. A. A. Andra Yusari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. John Nolan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Alif Hakim Alamsyah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Geizar Arsika Ramadhana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

TKPJ and GAR conceived the original idea of this research and proof outline. TKPJ wrote the manuscript with support, help and input from JJ, IGAAAY, and JN. TKPJ and GAR collected and input the data. TKPJ with help from JJ, IGAAAY, and JN analysed the data. TKPJ, GAR, and JN also done the copyediting, proofreading and revised the final manuscript. All authors were involved in drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Theodorus Kevin Putra Johansyah.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Johansyah, T.K.P., Jonathan, J., Yusari, I.G.A.A.A. et al. Equiosmolar doses of hypertonic saline versus mannitol for brain relaxation in patients undergoing elective craniotomies: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Egypt J Neurol Psychiatry Neurosurg 58, 142 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41983-022-00565-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41983-022-00565-8

Keywords