Anterior clinoid meningiomas: surgical results and proposed scoring system to predict visual outcomes

J Neurosurg 140:1295–1304, 2024

The authors report a single-surgeon experience with anterior clinoid meningiomas (ACMs) and propose a novel scoring system to predict visual outcomes based on preoperative risk factors.

METHODS A cohort study of all ACMs that were surgically treated by a single surgeon between 2003 and 2021 was performed. Visual function was assessed by an ophthalmologist pre- and postoperatively. Based on the combination of visual fields and visual acuity, 4 visual grades were described. Favorable visual outcomes were defined as mild visual deficit or intact vision postoperatively. Unfavorable visual outcomes were defined as a severe or moderate visual deficit. Predictors of unfavorable visual outcomes were identified using multivariable logistic regression analysis. A scoring system was then created using the resulting β coefficient. A receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was performed to identify a cutoff point on the grading score for stratifying patients at risk for unfavorable visual outcomes.

RESULTS Fifty-two patients met all inclusion criteria. Twenty-five (48%) patients presented with intact vision, and 27 (51%) presented with some visual dysfunction. Postoperative favorable visual outcomes were achieved in 39 patients (75%). Among the 27 patients presenting with visual dysfunction, 14 (52%) experienced improvement after surgery. No new visual deficits were observed among the 25 patients with intact vision at baseline. Nine patients (17%) had a reversible complication. Multivariable analysis showed that severe preoperative visual deficit (OR 13.03, 95% CI 2.64–64.39; p = 0.002), radiographic evidence of optic nerve (ON) encasement (OR 4.20, 95% CI 1.06–16.61; p = 0.04), intraoperative evidence of ON invasion (OR 17.31, 95% CI 2.91–102.86; p = 0.002), an average ganglion cell layer thickness of ≤ 70 µm (OR 21.54, 95% CI 2.94–159.04; p = 0.003), and an average retinal nerve fiber layer thickness of ≤ 80 µm (OR 13.68, 95% CI 1.91–98.00; p = 0.009) were associated with unfavorable visual outcome. The predictive score included the following factors: abnormal optical coherence tomography (OCT) findings, radiographic evidence of ON encasement by the tumor, and severe preoperative visual deficit. A score ≥ 4 of 6 points was demonstrated to be the cutoff associated with unfavorable visual outcome, with a sensitivity of 80%, specificity of 88%, positive predictive value of 80%, negative predictive value of 88%, and area under the curve of 0.847 (95% CI 0.674–1.0; p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS The authors have designed a practical and novel scoring system to predict visual outcomes in patients with ACMs. This scoring system may guide preoperative discussions with patients and timely surgical intervention to yield optimal visual function outcomes. Although most patients have excellent neurosurgical outcomes, severe baseline visual deficits, ON encasement, and characteristic OCT abnormalities are associated with unfavorable visual function after ACM resection.

Ventriculoatrial Shunt Versus Ventriculoperitoneal Shunt: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Neurosurgery 94:903–915, 2024

Ventriculoperitoneal shunt (VPS) is usually the primary choice for cerebrospinal fluid shunting for most neurosurgeons, while ventriculoatrial shunt (VAS) is a second-line procedure because of historical complications. Remarkably, there is no robust evidence claiming the superiority of VPS over VAS. Thus, we aimed to compare both procedures through a meta-analysis.

METHODS: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines, the authors systematically searched the literature for articles comparing VAS with VPS. The included articles had to detail one of the following outcomes: revisions, infections, shunt-related mortality, or complications. In addition, the cohort for each shunt model had to encompass more than 4 patients.

RESULTS: Of 1872 articles, 16 met our criteria, involving 4304 patients, with 1619 undergoing VAS and 2685 receiving VPS placement. Analysis of revision surgeries showed no significant difference between VAS and VPS (risk ratio [RR] = 1.10, 95% CI: 0.9-1.34; I 2 = 84%, random effects). Regarding infections, the analysis also found no significant difference between the groups (RR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.36-1.25; I 2 = 74%, random effects). There was no statistically significant disparity between both methods concerning shunt-related deaths (RR = 2.11, 95% CI: 0.68-6.60; I 2 = 56%, random effects). Included studies after 2000 showed no VAS led to cardiopulmonary complications, and only 1 shunt-related death could be identified.

CONCLUSION: Both methods show no significant differences in procedure revisions, infections, and shunt-related mortality. The literature is outdated, research in adults is lacking, and future randomized studies are crucial to understand the profile of VAS when comparing it with VPS. The final decision on which distal site for cerebrospinal shunting to use should be based on the patient’s characteristics and the surgeon’s expertise.