Tag: Metaanalysis

Posted on

Microsurgery versus Microsurgery With Preoperative Embolization for Brain Arteriovenous Malformation Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Neurosurgery 92:27–41, 2023

Preoperative embolization has traditionally been regarded as a safe and effective adjunct to microsurgical treatment of brain arteriovenous malformations (bAVM). However, there is currently no high-level evidence to ascertain this presumption.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of microsurgery (MS) vs microsurgery with preoperative embolization (E + MS) in patients with bAVM through systematic review.

METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, and Embase. The primary outcome was bAVM obliteration. Secondary outcomes were intraoperative bleeding (mL), complications, worsened modified Rankin Scale (mRS), and mortality. The pooled proportions of outcomes were calculated through the logit transformation method. The odds ratio (OR) of categorical data and mean difference of continuous data were estimated through the Mantel-Haenszel and the inverse variance methods, respectively.

RESULTS: Thirty-two studies met the eligibility criteria. One thousand eight hundred twenty-eight patients were treated by microsurgery alone, and 1088 were treated by microsurgery with preoperative embolization, respectively. The meta-analysis revealed no significant difference in AVM obliteration (94.1% vs 95.6%, OR = 1.15 [0.63-2.11], P = .65), mortality (1.7% vs 2%, OR = 0.88 [0.30-2.58], P = .82), procedural complications (18.2% vs 27.2%, OR = 0.47 [0.19-1.17], P = .10), worsened mRS (21.2% vs 18.5%, OR = 1.08 [0.33-3.54], P = .9), and intraoperative blood loss (mean difference = 182.89 [À87.76, 453.55], P = .19).

CONCLUSION: The meta-analysis showed no significant difference in AVM obliteration, mortality, complications, worse mRS, and intraoperative blood loss between MS and E + MS groups. For AVMs where MS alone has acceptable results, it is reasonable to bypass unnecessary preoperative embolization given higher postoperative complication risk.

Posted on

Cerebrospinal Fluid Shunting for Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Implications for a Modern Management Protocol

Neurosurgery 91:529–540, 2022

Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) shunting is widely used in refractory idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH). Although multiple reviews have assessed its efficacy compared with other surgical treatments, there is no detailed analysis that evaluates the clinical outcomes after CSF shunting.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a meta-analysis of the clinical impact of CSF shunting for refractory IIH and use this in conjunction with existing information on other treatment modalities to develop a modern management protocol.

METHODS: PubMed and Embase were systematically searched for studies describing CSF shunting for medically refractory IIH. Relevant information including study characteristics, patient demographics, clinical outcomes, periprocedural complications, and long-term outcomes were subjected to meta-analysis.

RESULTS: Fifteen studies published between 1988 and 2019 met our inclusion and exclusion criteria, providing 372 patients for analysis. The mean age was 31.2 years (range 0.5-71) with 83.6% being female. The average follow-up was 33.9 months (range 0-278 months). The overall rate of improvement in headache, papilledema, and visual impairment was 91% (95% CI 84%-97%), 96% (95% CI 85%-100%), and 85% (95% CI 72%95%), respectively. Of 372 patients, 155 had 436 revisions; the overall revision rate was 42% (95% CI 26%-59%). There was no significant correlation between average follow-up duration and revision rates in studies (P = .627). Periprocedural low-pressure headaches were noted in 74 patients (20%; 95% CI 11%-32%).

CONCLUSION: CSF shunting for IIH is associated with significant improvement in clinical symptoms. Shunting rarely causes periprocedural complications except overdrainagerelated low-pressure headache. However, CSF shunting has a relatively high revision rate.

Posted on

Papillary Tumor of the Pineal Region: Systematic Review and Analysis of Prognostic Factors

Neurosurgery, Volume 85, Issue 3, September 2019: E420–E429

Clinical outcomes and biological behavior of papillary tumors of the pineal region (PTPR) are still under investigation. The best therapeutic strategy has not been defined.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a comprehensive patient-level analysis of all PTPR cases and identify their clinical features, treatment options, and prognostic factors.

METHODS: A search of the medical databases for case series and reports on PTPRs from January 2003 to June 2017 was performed. Data addressing PTPR’s clinical presentation, imaging, treatment, and histological features were. Variables associated with the primary outcome of 36-mo survival were identified through Cox regression models.

RESULTS: The initial search yielded 1164 studies, of which 71 were included (60 case reports and 11 case series), containing 177 patients (mean age 33.0 ± 15.3 yr and 53.2% male). Intracranial hypertension and hydrocephalus prevailed as the clinical picture. Surgery was performed on 82.0% and gross total resection (GTR) was achieved on 71.4%. A total of 56.8% recurred after a median 29-mo (quartiles 10.5-45.5). The 36-mo survival rate was 83.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 76.2-89.2%). Good functional outcomes (Glasgow Outcome Scale 4/5) were observed in 60.0%. The variables of interest were inconsistently reported and the multivariable analysis final sample was 133 patients. After adjustment for age, tumor size (each additional centimeter, hazard ratio [HR] 1.99, 95% CI 1.12-3.53, P = .019) and surgical treatment (HR 0.16, 95% CI 0.05-0.45, P = .001) were associated with 36-mo survival.

CONCLUSION: Tumor size and surgery are associated with improvement in 36-mo survival. We did not observe any significant benefits from GTR or adjuvant treatments.

Proudly powered by WordPress