3.8 Article

Microneurosurgical management of middle cerebral artery bifurcation aneurysms

Journal

SURGICAL NEUROLOGY
Volume 67, Issue 5, Pages 441-456

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.surneu.2006.11.056

Keywords

aneurysm; middle cerebral artery; bifurcation; surgery; microsurgical technique; clipping; subarachnoid hemorrhage

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Of the MCA aneurysms, those located at the main bifurcation of the MCA (MbifA) are by far the most frequent. The purpose of this article is to review the practical anatomy, preoperative planning, and avoidance of complications in the microsurgical dissection and clipping of MbifAs. Methods: This review, and the whole series on intracranial aneurysms, is mainly based on the personal microneurosurgical experience of the senior author (JH) in 2 Finnish centers (Helsinki and Kuopio), which serve without patient selection the catchment area in southern and eastern Finland. Results: These 2 centers have treated more than 10000 patients with intracranial aneurysms since 1951. In the Kuopio Cerebral Aneurysm Data Base of 3005 patients with 4253 aneurysms, MbifAs formed 30% of all ruptured aneurysms, 36% of all unruptured aneurysms, 35% of all giant aneurysms, and 89% of all MCA aneurysms. Importantly, in 45%, rupture of MbifA caused an ICH. Conclusions: Middle cerebral artery bifurcation aneurysms are often broad necked and may involve one or both branches of the bifurcation (M2s). The anatomical and hemodynamic features of MbifAs make them usually more favorable for microneurosurgical treatment. In population-based services, MbifAs are frequent targets of elective surgery (unruptured), acute surgery (ruptured), and emergency surgery (large ICH), even advanced approaches (giant). The challenge is to clip the neck adequately, without neck remnants, while preserving the bifurcational flow. (c) 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available