Systematic review shows an association between styloid process distance and internal carotid artery dissection, suggesting potential risk factors.
Purpose Internal carotid artery dissection (ICA-D) is an important cause of stroke in adults. The styloid process (SP) may be associated with ICA-D due to potential (micro)trauma resulting from its close anatomical proximity to the internal carotid artery (ICA). The aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis is to investigate the association between SP characteristics -particularly SP-ICA distance - and ICA-D.Methods A systematic review was conducted across six databases to identify observational studies comparing ICA-D patients to controls. The primary outcome of interest was the association between SP-ICA distance and ICA-D. Secondary outcomes included associations between ICA-D and the SP length or angulation. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed, including a subgroup analysis of moderate/high-quality studies. Effect sizes were expressed as standardized mean differences (SMD, Hedges' g).Results Six studies were included in the systematic review, of which five were eligible in the meta-analysis. The pooled analysis of all five case-control studies (270 ICA-D patients and 377 controls) showed no significant difference in SP-ICA distance (SMD = -0.92, p = 0.143); with a high degree of heterogeneity (I2 = 98%). Subgroup analysis of moderate/high-quality studies evaluating the SP-ICA distance ipsilateral to the ICA-D (4 studies) yielded a negative pooled SMD (-0.29, p = 0.047; moderate heterogeneity: I2 = 64%), consistent with a shorter SP-ICA distance in ICA-D cases. Meta-analysis of the SP length (3 studies) found no significant association (SMD 0.24, p = 0.139) and two studies also found no significant relationship between ICA-D and SP angulation.Conclusion A shorter SP-ICA distance was associated with ICA-D, whereas no significant associations were observed for SP length or angulation. However, the available evidence remains limited and heterogeneous.Systematic Review Registration CRD42024582594.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Klail et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: