4.3 Article

MICROVASCULAR DECOMPRESSION FOR TRIGEMINAL NEURALGIA: THE IMPORTANCE OF A NONCOMPRESSIVE TECHNIQUE-KAPLAN-MEIER ANALYSIS IN A CONSECUTIVE SERIES OF 330 PATIENTS

期刊

NEUROSURGERY
卷 63, 期 4, 页码 341-350

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1227/01.NEU.0000327022.79171.D6

关键词

Kaplan-Meier analysis; Long-term results; Microvascular decompression techniques; Neurovascular compression; Trigeminal neuralgia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE: Microvascular decompression, although a well-established procedure for treating primary trigeminal neuralgia, still has no standardized protocol. The practical consequences of having the implant keep the conflicting vessels apart, whether or not in contact with the root, is still in debate. The present work was undertaken to answer this question. METHODS: Patients were segregated into 2 groups: Group I (260 patients) had a Teflon prosthesis implanted without contact to the root, and Group II (70 patients) had a similar implant with contact to the root. Cure rates in the 2 groups were compared at the latest follow-up (<= 15 yr; average, 8.2 yr) using Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: In Group I, the cure rate was 82% (214 of 260 patients), whereas in Group II, the cure rate was 67% (47 of 70 patients) (P = 0.01). Kaplan-Meier analysis of the follow-up period up to 15 years also shows a significant difference (P = 0.05). CONCLUSION: These results strongly support the goal of performing the procedure without the implant in contact with the root. This is easier with the superior cerebellar artery, because of its laxity and small number of perforating branches, than with the anteroinferior cerebellar artery, which has perforators to the brainstem and labyrinthine artery arising from its cisternal portion. The significantly better long-term cure rate when the implant is not in contact with the root favors the pure decompressive effect of the microvascular decompression procedure, rather than a conduction block mechanism.

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

4.3
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