Comparative meta-analysis of microsurgery versus endovascular therapy and bypass versus nonbypass techniques for blister-like aneurysms: enigmas of the supraclinoid internal carotid artery.

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Nolan J Brown, Zach Pennington, Saarang Patel, Ali Tafreshi, Julian Gendreau, Redi Rahmani, Joshua S Catapano, Michael T Lawton
{"title":"Comparative meta-analysis of microsurgery versus endovascular therapy and bypass versus nonbypass techniques for blister-like aneurysms: enigmas of the supraclinoid internal carotid artery.","authors":"Nolan J Brown, Zach Pennington, Saarang Patel, Ali Tafreshi, Julian Gendreau, Redi Rahmani, Joshua S Catapano, Michael T Lawton","doi":"10.3171/2024.8.JNS232241","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Blister aneurysms of the internal carotid artery (ICA) have high associated mortality rates and are challenging due to their friable wall and poorly defined neck. Microsurgical and endovascular treatment options have been suggested, including bypass of the parent vessel to exclude the aneurysm. The goal of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of microsurgical versus endovascular interventions. Additionally, for patients treated with open surgery, the outcomes of bypass were compared to nonbypass techniques.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Three databases were systematically queried for primary studies comparing microsurgery to endovascular therapy and assessing bypass versus nonbypass treatment modalities for blister aneurysms of the ICA. All relevant studies published between 2000 and 2023 were eligible for inclusion. All articles were screened against title and abstract by 2 authors, as were those eligible for full-text assessment. Ultimately, relevant data from all included studies were pooled for meta-analysis in which the Mantel-Haenszel method with random-effects modeling was used.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the 504 cases reported across 24 studies, 182 (35.1%) blister aneurysms of the ICA were surgically treated, whereas 337 (64.9%) involved endovascular treatment. There were 235 (46.6%) female patients in the cohort. Functional outcomes were comparable between groups, with 83% of surgically treated patients and 85% of endovascularly treated patients achieving a favorable outcome (p > 0.05). Among the 7 studies (178 patients) comparing bypass to nonbypass microsurgery, rates of postoperative bleeding, ischemic infarct, vasospasm, recurrence, favorable outcomes, and mortality were comparable for bypass (n = 54, 30.3%) and nonbypass groups (n = 124, 69.7%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Blister aneurysms of the ICA are rare intracranial aneurysms that are difficult to treat with microsurgical and endovascular techniques. Considering only patients treated with open surgery, there appears to be no significant difference in complication profile or functional outcomes between patients undergoing bypass or alternative microsurgical techniques. However, it must be noted that the complex nature of bypass procedures means that much of the data granularity is lost on meta-analysis, suggesting that additional investigations comparing bypass to other open microsurgical techniques may be merited. Similarly, future studies should determine the limitations of dual antiplatelet therapy in endovascular treatment and the efficacy of different numbers and types of overlapping, flow-diverting devices.</p>","PeriodicalId":16505,"journal":{"name":"Journal of neurosurgery","volume":" ","pages":"1-12"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of neurosurgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3171/2024.8.JNS232241","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Blister aneurysms of the internal carotid artery (ICA) have high associated mortality rates and are challenging due to their friable wall and poorly defined neck. Microsurgical and endovascular treatment options have been suggested, including bypass of the parent vessel to exclude the aneurysm. The goal of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of microsurgical versus endovascular interventions. Additionally, for patients treated with open surgery, the outcomes of bypass were compared to nonbypass techniques.

Methods: Three databases were systematically queried for primary studies comparing microsurgery to endovascular therapy and assessing bypass versus nonbypass treatment modalities for blister aneurysms of the ICA. All relevant studies published between 2000 and 2023 were eligible for inclusion. All articles were screened against title and abstract by 2 authors, as were those eligible for full-text assessment. Ultimately, relevant data from all included studies were pooled for meta-analysis in which the Mantel-Haenszel method with random-effects modeling was used.

Results: Among the 504 cases reported across 24 studies, 182 (35.1%) blister aneurysms of the ICA were surgically treated, whereas 337 (64.9%) involved endovascular treatment. There were 235 (46.6%) female patients in the cohort. Functional outcomes were comparable between groups, with 83% of surgically treated patients and 85% of endovascularly treated patients achieving a favorable outcome (p > 0.05). Among the 7 studies (178 patients) comparing bypass to nonbypass microsurgery, rates of postoperative bleeding, ischemic infarct, vasospasm, recurrence, favorable outcomes, and mortality were comparable for bypass (n = 54, 30.3%) and nonbypass groups (n = 124, 69.7%).

Conclusions: Blister aneurysms of the ICA are rare intracranial aneurysms that are difficult to treat with microsurgical and endovascular techniques. Considering only patients treated with open surgery, there appears to be no significant difference in complication profile or functional outcomes between patients undergoing bypass or alternative microsurgical techniques. However, it must be noted that the complex nature of bypass procedures means that much of the data granularity is lost on meta-analysis, suggesting that additional investigations comparing bypass to other open microsurgical techniques may be merited. Similarly, future studies should determine the limitations of dual antiplatelet therapy in endovascular treatment and the efficacy of different numbers and types of overlapping, flow-diverting devices.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of neurosurgery
Journal of neurosurgery 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
7.30%
发文量
1003
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Neurosurgery, Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics, and Neurosurgical Focus are devoted to the publication of original works relating primarily to neurosurgery, including studies in clinical neurophysiology, organic neurology, ophthalmology, radiology, pathology, and molecular biology. The Editors and Editorial Boards encourage submission of clinical and laboratory studies. Other manuscripts accepted for review include technical notes on instruments or equipment that are innovative or useful to clinicians and researchers in the field of neuroscience; papers describing unusual cases; manuscripts on historical persons or events related to neurosurgery; and in Neurosurgical Focus, occasional reviews. Letters to the Editor commenting on articles recently published in the Journal of Neurosurgery, Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, and Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics are welcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信