Comparison between Spinal Dural Arteriovenous Fistula and Spinal Epidural Arteriovenous Fistula

JNET Pub Date : 2019-01-01 DOI:10.5797/JNET.OA.2018-0082

M. Hiramatsu, K. Sugiu, T. Yasuhara, T. Hishikawa, S. Nishihiro, N. Kidani, Yu Takahashi, S. Murai, I. Date

{"title":"Comparison between Spinal Dural Arteriovenous Fistula and Spinal Epidural Arteriovenous Fistula","authors":"M. Hiramatsu, K. Sugiu, T. Yasuhara, T. Hishikawa, S. Nishihiro, N. Kidani, Yu Takahashi, S. Murai, I. Date","doi":"10.5797/JNET.OA.2018-0082","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: The purpose of this study is to retrospectively assess the differences between spinal dural arteriovenous fistulas (SDAVFs) and spinal epidural arteriovenous fistulas (SEAVFs). Methods: Subjects consisted of 18 patients with SDAVFs and 7 with SEAVFs admitted to our department between January 2007 and December 2017 exhibiting intradural drainage of shunt flow. Patient background, lesion characteristics, and treatment/follow-up results were compared. Results: Of the seven patients in the SEAVF group, six patients (86%) had been misdiagnosed with SDAVFs at the time of treatment. The rates of patients with a history of spinal surgery, lumbar vertebral lesions, involvement of a dorsal somatic branch (DSB), involvement of multiple segmental arteries, or involvement of bilateral segmental arteries were significantly higher in the SEAVF group. As for post-treatment course, there were significant difference in the recurrence rate after endovascular treatment (SDAVF group: 6%, SEAVF group: 50%, respectively, p < 0.05). Conclusion: Endovascular treatment may not be effective for SEAVFs if they are misdiagnosed as SDAVFs, and they may recur. For optimal treatment, accurate assessment of the angioarchitecture with the latest diagnostic imaging method may be necessary.","PeriodicalId":34768,"journal":{"name":"JNET","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.5797/JNET.OA.2018-0082","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JNET","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5797/JNET.OA.2018-0082","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 5

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study is to retrospectively assess the differences between spinal dural arteriovenous fistulas (SDAVFs) and spinal epidural arteriovenous fistulas (SEAVFs). Methods: Subjects consisted of 18 patients with SDAVFs and 7 with SEAVFs admitted to our department between January 2007 and December 2017 exhibiting intradural drainage of shunt flow. Patient background, lesion characteristics, and treatment/follow-up results were compared. Results: Of the seven patients in the SEAVF group, six patients (86%) had been misdiagnosed with SDAVFs at the time of treatment. The rates of patients with a history of spinal surgery, lumbar vertebral lesions, involvement of a dorsal somatic branch (DSB), involvement of multiple segmental arteries, or involvement of bilateral segmental arteries were significantly higher in the SEAVF group. As for post-treatment course, there were significant difference in the recurrence rate after endovascular treatment (SDAVF group: 6%, SEAVF group: 50%, respectively, p < 0.05). Conclusion: Endovascular treatment may not be effective for SEAVFs if they are misdiagnosed as SDAVFs, and they may recur. For optimal treatment, accurate assessment of the angioarchitecture with the latest diagnostic imaging method may be necessary.

查看原文本刊更多论文

脊髓硬膜外动静脉瘘与脊髓硬膜外动静脉瘘的比较

目的:本研究的目的是回顾性评估脊髓硬膜动静脉瘘(SDAVFs)和脊髓硬膜外动静脉瘘(SEAVFs)的差异。方法:研究对象为2007年1月至2017年12月在我科就诊的18例sdavf和7例seavf患者，均表现为分流血流硬膜内引流。比较患者背景、病变特征和治疗/随访结果。结果:SEAVF组的7例患者中，有6例(86%)在治疗时被误诊为sdavf。有脊柱手术史、腰椎病变、累及背侧体支(DSB)、累及多节段动脉或累及双节段动脉的患者比例在SEAVF组中明显更高。治疗后病程方面，两组血管内治疗复发率差异有统计学意义(SDAVF组为6%，SEAVF组为50%，p < 0.05)。结论:经血管内治疗的seavf若被误诊为sdavf，可能无效，并有复发的危险。为了获得最佳治疗，可能需要使用最新的诊断成像方法对血管结构进行准确评估。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

JNET

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

17 weeks

期刊介绍： JNET Journal of Neuroendovascular Therapy is the official journal of the Japanese Society for Neuroendovascular Therapy (JSNET). The JNET publishes peer-reviewed original research related to neuroendovascular therapy, including clinical studies, state-of-the-art technology, education, and basic sciences.