4.5 Article

A Descriptive Analysis of Spinal Cord Arteriovenous Malformations: Clinical Features, Outcomes, and Trends in Management

期刊

WORLD NEUROSURGERY
卷 131, 期 -, 页码 E579-E585

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2019.08.010

关键词

Arteriovenous malformation; MarketScan; Outcomes; Spinal cord AVM

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Spinal arteriovenous malformations (AVM) are an abnormal interconnection of vasculature in the spine than can lead to significant neurologic deficit if left untreated. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to characterize how patients with spinal AVM initially presented, what treatment options were used, and their overall outcomes on a national scale. METHODS: The MarketScan database was queried to identify adult patients diagnosed with a spinal AVM from 2007 to 2015. Trends in management, postoperative complication rates, and costs were determined. RESULTS: In total, 976 patients were identified with having a diagnosis of a spinal AVM. Patients were more commonly treated with an open incision than an embolization (40.1% vs. 15.4%). The overall complication rate was 33.61%. Spinal AVM admissions have been stable over the past decade, and mean cost of hospitalization has risen from of $48,700 in 2007 to $71,292 in 2015. Patients who underwent open surgery had a greater complication rate than those treated with embolization (31.15% vs. 18.25%, P < 0.005); however, this may be strongly influenced by complexity of spinal AVM pathology and not treatment modality. CONCLUSIONS: Costs of spinal AVM management continue to rise, even when treatment modalities have reduced length of stay significantly. Open surgery may lead to more postoperative complications and a greater length of stay than endovascular approaches. Further studies should look to identify the efficacy of endovascular approaches for spinal cord AVMs, particularly in complex spinal AVM traditionally treated with open surgery and to isolate factors leading to the elevated hospitalization costs.

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

4.5
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