4.6 Article

Long-term Results of Gamma Knife Surgery for Partially Embolized Arteriovenous Malformations

期刊

NEUROSURGERY
卷 71, 期 6, 页码 1139-1147

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1227/NEU.0b013e3182720280

关键词

Arteriovenous malformation; Embolization; Endovascular; Gamma Knife; Radiosurgery

资金

  1. Emil-Boral Foundation of Austria
  2. Emil-Boral Foundation of Switzerland

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness and risk of Gamma Knife surgery (GKS) in the management of partially embolized cerebral arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) remain to be elucidated. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long-term imaging and clinical outcomes of GKS in AVM patients who had undergone previous partial embolization and compare the results with patients treated with GKS alone. METHODS: A total of 215 embolized AVMs were analyzed. The mean patient age was 32.9 years. The mean volume of the nidus was 4.6 mL (range, 0.1-29.4 mL), and the mean prescription dose was 19.6 Gy (range, 4-28 Gy). This group was compared with 729 nonembolized AVMs. RESULTS: After embolization and GKS, angiographically confirmed total obliteration of the AVMs was significantly lower (33%) compared with patients in whom GKS was used alone (60.9%; P < .001). However, the mean nidus size was larger and the Spetzler-Martin grade was higher for the embolized AVMs compared with the nonembolized AVMs. Radiation-induced changes occurred more often in the embolized (43.4%) than the nonembolized (33.4%) AVMs (P = .028). Permanent neurological deficits associated with radiation-induced changes occurred in 2.7% of the embolized compared with 1.3% of the nonembolized patients (P = .14). CONCLUSION: In our retrospective and historical series, the long-term results suggest that the obliteration rate is significantly lower in embolized AVMs compared with nonembolized AVMs, also because of the fact that the combined treatment is applied to higher grade AVMs; the percentage of grade III-V AVMs was 58.6% and 48.8% for nonembolized AVMs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据