治疗硬脑膜颈动脉海绵瘘的血管内方法:系统综述。

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 Medicine
Edward S Harake, Edwin Nieblas-Bedolla, Zachary Wilseck, Neeraj Chaudhary, Rocco A Armonda, Aditya S Pandey, Ehsan Dowlati
{"title":"治疗硬脑膜颈动脉海绵瘘的血管内方法:系统综述。","authors":"Edward S Harake, Edwin Nieblas-Bedolla, Zachary Wilseck, Neeraj Chaudhary, Rocco A Armonda, Aditya S Pandey, Ehsan Dowlati","doi":"10.1177/15910199241272595","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Dural carotid-cavernous fistulas (dCCFs), also known as indirect carotid-cavernous fistulas, represent abnormal connections between the arterial and venous systems within the cavernous sinus that are typically treated via endovascular approach. We aim to investigate the clinical characteristics of patients with dCCFs based on the endovascular treatment approach and assess angiographic and clinical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review of the literature was performed. Data including number of patients, demographics, presenting clinical symptoms, etiology of fistula, Barrow classification, and embolization material were collected and evaluated. Outcome measures collected included degree of fistula occlusion, postoperative symptoms, complications, and mean follow-up time.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 52 studies were included examining four primary endovascular approaches for treating dCCFs: transarterial, transfemoral-transvenous (transpetrosal or other), transorbital (percutaneous or via cutdown), and direct transfacial access. Overall data was collected from 736 patients with 817 dCCFs. Transarterial approaches exhibit lower dCCF occlusion rates (75.6%) compared to transvenous techniques via the inferior petrosal sinus (88.1%). The transorbital approach via direct puncture or surgical cutdown offers a more direct path to the cavernous sinus, although with greater complications including risk of orbital hematoma. The direct transfacial vein approach, though limited, shows up to 100% occlusion rates and minimal complications.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We provide a comprehensive review of four main endovascular approaches for dCCFs. In summary, available endovascular treatment options for dCCFs have expanded and provide effective solutions with generally favorable outcomes. While the choice of approach depends on individual patient factors and technique availability, traditional transvenous procedures have emerged as the first-line endovascular treatment. There is growing, favorable literature on direct transorbital and transfacial approaches; however, more studies directly comparing these general transvenous options are necessary to refine treatment strategies.</p>","PeriodicalId":14380,"journal":{"name":"Interventional Neuroradiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Endovascular approaches for the treatment of dural carotid-cavernous fistulas: A systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Edward S Harake, Edwin Nieblas-Bedolla, Zachary Wilseck, Neeraj Chaudhary, Rocco A Armonda, Aditya S Pandey, Ehsan Dowlati\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/15910199241272595\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Dural carotid-cavernous fistulas (dCCFs), also known as indirect carotid-cavernous fistulas, represent abnormal connections between the arterial and venous systems within the cavernous sinus that are typically treated via endovascular approach. We aim to investigate the clinical characteristics of patients with dCCFs based on the endovascular treatment approach and assess angiographic and clinical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review of the literature was performed. Data including number of patients, demographics, presenting clinical symptoms, etiology of fistula, Barrow classification, and embolization material were collected and evaluated. Outcome measures collected included degree of fistula occlusion, postoperative symptoms, complications, and mean follow-up time.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 52 studies were included examining four primary endovascular approaches for treating dCCFs: transarterial, transfemoral-transvenous (transpetrosal or other), transorbital (percutaneous or via cutdown), and direct transfacial access. Overall data was collected from 736 patients with 817 dCCFs. Transarterial approaches exhibit lower dCCF occlusion rates (75.6%) compared to transvenous techniques via the inferior petrosal sinus (88.1%). The transorbital approach via direct puncture or surgical cutdown offers a more direct path to the cavernous sinus, although with greater complications including risk of orbital hematoma. The direct transfacial vein approach, though limited, shows up to 100% occlusion rates and minimal complications.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We provide a comprehensive review of four main endovascular approaches for dCCFs. In summary, available endovascular treatment options for dCCFs have expanded and provide effective solutions with generally favorable outcomes. While the choice of approach depends on individual patient factors and technique availability, traditional transvenous procedures have emerged as the first-line endovascular treatment. There is growing, favorable literature on direct transorbital and transfacial approaches; however, more studies directly comparing these general transvenous options are necessary to refine treatment strategies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14380,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Interventional Neuroradiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Interventional Neuroradiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/15910199241272595\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interventional Neuroradiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15910199241272595","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:硬膜颈动脉-海绵窦瘘(dCCFs)又称间接颈动脉-海绵窦瘘,是海绵窦内动脉和静脉系统之间的异常连接,通常通过血管内治疗。我们旨在根据血管内治疗方法研究dCCFs患者的临床特征,并评估血管造影和临床结果:方法:我们对文献进行了系统回顾。收集和评估的数据包括患者人数、人口统计学、临床症状、瘘管病因、巴罗分类和栓塞材料。收集的结果指标包括瘘管闭塞程度、术后症状、并发症和平均随访时间:结果:共纳入了52项研究,对治疗dCCF的四种主要血管内方法进行了检查:经动脉、经口-经静脉(经颅或其他)、经眶(经皮或通过切口)和直接经面部入路。共收集了 736 名患者的总体数据,其中有 817 个 dCCF。经动脉途径的 dCCF 闭塞率(75.6%)低于经下蝶窦的经静脉技术(88.1%)。通过直接穿刺或手术切口的经眶方法为海绵窦提供了更直接的路径,但并发症也更多,包括眶内血肿的风险。直接经面部静脉入路虽然效果有限,但闭塞率高达 100%,并发症极少:我们全面回顾了治疗 dCCF 的四种主要血管内方法。总之,dCCF 可用的血管内治疗方案已得到扩展,并提供了有效的解决方案,取得了普遍良好的疗效。虽然方法的选择取决于患者的个体因素和技术的可用性,但传统的经静脉手术已成为一线血管内治疗方法。关于直接经眶和经面部方法的良好文献越来越多;但是,有必要进行更多的研究,直接比较这些一般的经静脉方法,以完善治疗策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Endovascular approaches for the treatment of dural carotid-cavernous fistulas: A systematic review.

Introduction: Dural carotid-cavernous fistulas (dCCFs), also known as indirect carotid-cavernous fistulas, represent abnormal connections between the arterial and venous systems within the cavernous sinus that are typically treated via endovascular approach. We aim to investigate the clinical characteristics of patients with dCCFs based on the endovascular treatment approach and assess angiographic and clinical outcomes.

Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed. Data including number of patients, demographics, presenting clinical symptoms, etiology of fistula, Barrow classification, and embolization material were collected and evaluated. Outcome measures collected included degree of fistula occlusion, postoperative symptoms, complications, and mean follow-up time.

Results: A total of 52 studies were included examining four primary endovascular approaches for treating dCCFs: transarterial, transfemoral-transvenous (transpetrosal or other), transorbital (percutaneous or via cutdown), and direct transfacial access. Overall data was collected from 736 patients with 817 dCCFs. Transarterial approaches exhibit lower dCCF occlusion rates (75.6%) compared to transvenous techniques via the inferior petrosal sinus (88.1%). The transorbital approach via direct puncture or surgical cutdown offers a more direct path to the cavernous sinus, although with greater complications including risk of orbital hematoma. The direct transfacial vein approach, though limited, shows up to 100% occlusion rates and minimal complications.

Conclusion: We provide a comprehensive review of four main endovascular approaches for dCCFs. In summary, available endovascular treatment options for dCCFs have expanded and provide effective solutions with generally favorable outcomes. While the choice of approach depends on individual patient factors and technique availability, traditional transvenous procedures have emerged as the first-line endovascular treatment. There is growing, favorable literature on direct transorbital and transfacial approaches; however, more studies directly comparing these general transvenous options are necessary to refine treatment strategies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
11.80%
发文量
192
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Interventional Neuroradiology (INR) is a peer-reviewed clinical practice journal documenting the current state of interventional neuroradiology worldwide. INR publishes original clinical observations, descriptions of new techniques or procedures, case reports, and articles on the ethical and social aspects of related health care. Original research published in INR is related to the practice of interventional neuroradiology...
×
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