共 51 条
Posterior Inferior Cerebellar Artery-Posterior Inferior Cerebellar Artery Bypass versus Occipital Artery-Posterior Inferior Cerebellar Artery Bypass for Treating Posterior Circulation Aneurysms: A Systematic Review and Comparative Meta-Analysis
被引:0
作者:
Oliveira, Leonardo de Barros
[1
]
Sousa, Marcelo Porto
[2
]
Semione, Gabriel
[3
]
Ferreira, Marcio Yuri
[4
]
Batista, Savio
[2
]
Palavani, Lucca B.
[5
]
Andrea, Filipi F.
[2
]
Diniz, Jordana B. C.
[6
]
Rabelo, Nicollas Nunes
[7
]
Bertani, Raphael
[7
]
Welling, Leonardo C.
[1
]
Lawton, Michael T.
[8
]
Figueiredo, Eberval Gadelha
[7
]
机构:
[1] Univ Estadual Ponta Grossa, Dept Neurosurg, Ponta Grossa, Parana, Brazil
[2] Univ Fed Rio de Janeiro, Dept Neurosurg, Rio De Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
[3] Univ West Santa Catarina, Dept Neurosurg, Joacaba, SC, Brazil
[4] Ninth July Univ, Dept Neurosurg, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
[5] Max Planck Univ Ctr, Dept Neurosurg, Indaiatuba, SP, Brazil
[6] Neurol Inst Goiania, Goiania, Go, Brazil
[7] Univ Sao Paulo, Dept Neurosurg, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
[8] Barrow Neurol Inst, Dept Neurosurg, Phoenix, AZ USA
关键词:
VERTEBRAL ARTERY;
INTRACRANIAL BYPASS;
DISSECTING ANEURYSMS;
ANASTOMOSIS;
OUTCOMES;
SURGERY;
D O I:
10.1016/j.wneu.2024.02.153
中图分类号:
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号:
摘要:
<black square> BACKGROUND: When traditional therapies are unsuitable, revascularization becomes essential for managing posterior inferior cerebellar artery (PICA) or vertebral artery aneurysms. Notably, the PICA-PICA bypass has emerged as a promising option, overshadowing the occipital artery-PICA (OA-PICA) bypass. The objective was to compare the safety and efficacy of OA-PICA and PICA-PICA bypasses. <black square> METHODS: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines, we conducted a systematic review and meta- analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of OA-PICA and PICA-PICA bypasses for treating posterior circulation aneurysms. <black square> RESULTS: We analyzed 13 studies for the PICA-PICA bypass and 16 studies on the OA-PICA bypass, involving 84 and 110 patients, respectively. The median average follow-up for PICA-PICA bypass was 8 months (2-50.3- 50.3 months), while for OA-PICA, it was 27.8 months (6-84- 84 months). The patency rate for OA-PICA was 97% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 92%-100%)- 100%) and 100% (95% CI: 95%-- 100%) for PICA-PICA. Complication rates were 29% (95% CI: 10%-47%)- 47%) for OA- PICA and 12% (95% CI: 3%-21%)- 21%) for PICA-PICA. Good clinical outcomes were observed in 71% (95% CI: 52%-90%)- 90%) of OA-PICA patients and 87% (95% CI: 75%-- 100%) of PICA-PICA patients. Procedure-related mortality was 1% (95% CI: 0%-- 6%) for OA-PICA and 1% (95% CI: 0%-10%)- 10%) for PICA-PICA. <black square> CONCLUSIONS: Both procedures have demonstrated promising results in efficacy and safety. PICA-PICA exhibits slightly better patency rates, better clinical outcomes, and fewer complications, but with a lack of substantial follow-up and a smaller sample size. The choice between these procedures should be based on the surgeon's expertise and the patient's anatomy.
引用
收藏
页码:403 / 416.e7
页数:21
相关论文