内镜下第三脑室造口术与立体定向支架置入术治疗导水管狭窄的比较。

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Moritz Ueberschaer, Katja Wirthensohn, Sebastian Niedermeyer, Robert Forbrig, Niklas Thon, Mathias Kunz, Michael Schmutzer-Sondergeld
{"title":"内镜下第三脑室造口术与立体定向支架置入术治疗导水管狭窄的比较。","authors":"Moritz Ueberschaer, Katja Wirthensohn, Sebastian Niedermeyer, Robert Forbrig, Niklas Thon, Mathias Kunz, Michael Schmutzer-Sondergeld","doi":"10.3171/2025.2.JNS242984","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The standard treatment for noncommunicating hydrocephalus is endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV). An alternative procedure is the stereotactic implantation of a shunt catheter through the ventricles into the prepontine cistern, which serves as a stent (STS). This procedure may reduce the risk of stoma occlusion. The aim of this study was to compare the surgical and clinical results of both procedures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with aqueductal stenosis treated by either ETV or STS from January 2013 to July 2024 were included in this single-center retrospective study. Patient records were searched for indication, procedural data, complications, and clinical outcomes. In addition, available MR images were analyzed for the Evans index, basilar artery to clivus distance, and ventricular width. The parameters were compared between ETV and STS groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>STS was performed in 50 patients with a mean age of 46 years and ETV in 97 patients with a mean age of 36 years. STS was carried out more frequently in patients with secondary aqueductal stenosis due to a tumor (66% vs 21%), while ETV was conducted more frequently in patients with primary aqueductal stenosis (76% vs 26%). The distance between the basilar tip and clivus was significantly smaller in the STS group (2.8 vs 3.7 mm, p = 0.0007). The most common symptoms before surgery in both groups were headaches (48%), cognitive impairment (46%), and gait disorder (48%). Both procedures resulted in significant improvement of symptoms. There was no significant difference in the number of revision surgical procedures due to infection or bleeding (STS 8% vs ETV 4%) or insufficiency of the hydrocephalus treatment (STS 4% vs ETV 13%, p = 0.09). Subgroup analyses that excluded newborns and stratified results by etiology of aqueductal stenosis had no effect on the results.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The safety and efficacy of both surgical procedures are comparable. The selection of the surgical approach must be made on an individual basis.</p>","PeriodicalId":16505,"journal":{"name":"Journal of neurosurgery","volume":" ","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of endoscopic third ventriculostomy with stereotactic prepontine stenting in patients with aqueductal stenosis.\",\"authors\":\"Moritz Ueberschaer, Katja Wirthensohn, Sebastian Niedermeyer, Robert Forbrig, Niklas Thon, Mathias Kunz, Michael Schmutzer-Sondergeld\",\"doi\":\"10.3171/2025.2.JNS242984\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The standard treatment for noncommunicating hydrocephalus is endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV). An alternative procedure is the stereotactic implantation of a shunt catheter through the ventricles into the prepontine cistern, which serves as a stent (STS). This procedure may reduce the risk of stoma occlusion. The aim of this study was to compare the surgical and clinical results of both procedures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with aqueductal stenosis treated by either ETV or STS from January 2013 to July 2024 were included in this single-center retrospective study. Patient records were searched for indication, procedural data, complications, and clinical outcomes. In addition, available MR images were analyzed for the Evans index, basilar artery to clivus distance, and ventricular width. The parameters were compared between ETV and STS groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>STS was performed in 50 patients with a mean age of 46 years and ETV in 97 patients with a mean age of 36 years. STS was carried out more frequently in patients with secondary aqueductal stenosis due to a tumor (66% vs 21%), while ETV was conducted more frequently in patients with primary aqueductal stenosis (76% vs 26%). The distance between the basilar tip and clivus was significantly smaller in the STS group (2.8 vs 3.7 mm, p = 0.0007). The most common symptoms before surgery in both groups were headaches (48%), cognitive impairment (46%), and gait disorder (48%). Both procedures resulted in significant improvement of symptoms. There was no significant difference in the number of revision surgical procedures due to infection or bleeding (STS 8% vs ETV 4%) or insufficiency of the hydrocephalus treatment (STS 4% vs ETV 13%, p = 0.09). Subgroup analyses that excluded newborns and stratified results by etiology of aqueductal stenosis had no effect on the results.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The safety and efficacy of both surgical procedures are comparable. The selection of the surgical approach must be made on an individual basis.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16505,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of neurosurgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-9\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-13\",\"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/10.3171/2025.2.JNS242984\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of neurosurgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3171/2025.2.JNS242984","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

摘要

目的:内镜下第三脑室造口术(ETV)是非交通性脑积水的标准治疗方法。另一种方法是立体定向植入分流导管通过脑室进入前置池,作为支架(STS)。该手术可降低造口闭塞的风险。本研究的目的是比较两种方法的手术和临床结果。方法:选取2013年1月至2024年7月接受ETV或STS治疗的输水管狭窄患者为研究对象,进行单中心回顾性研究。检索患者记录,包括适应症、手术资料、并发症和临床结果。此外,还分析了可用的MR图像,包括Evans指数、基底动脉到斜坡的距离和心室宽度。比较ETV组和STS组的各项指标。结果:50例患者行STS,平均年龄46岁;97例患者行ETV,平均年龄36岁。由于肿瘤导致的继发性输水管狭窄患者更常进行STS(66%对21%),而原发性输水管狭窄患者更常进行ETV(76%对26%)。STS组基底尖与斜坡之间的距离明显更小(2.8 vs 3.7 mm, p = 0.0007)。两组患者手术前最常见的症状是头痛(48%)、认知障碍(46%)和步态障碍(48%)。两种方法均显著改善了症状。由于感染或出血(STS 8% vs ETV 4%)或脑积水治疗不足(STS 4% vs ETV 13%, p = 0.09)而进行翻修手术的次数无显著差异。排除新生儿的亚组分析和按输水管狭窄病因分层的结果对结果没有影响。结论:两种手术方式的安全性和有效性具有可比性。手术入路的选择必须根据个人情况而定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of endoscopic third ventriculostomy with stereotactic prepontine stenting in patients with aqueductal stenosis.

Objective: The standard treatment for noncommunicating hydrocephalus is endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV). An alternative procedure is the stereotactic implantation of a shunt catheter through the ventricles into the prepontine cistern, which serves as a stent (STS). This procedure may reduce the risk of stoma occlusion. The aim of this study was to compare the surgical and clinical results of both procedures.

Methods: Patients with aqueductal stenosis treated by either ETV or STS from January 2013 to July 2024 were included in this single-center retrospective study. Patient records were searched for indication, procedural data, complications, and clinical outcomes. In addition, available MR images were analyzed for the Evans index, basilar artery to clivus distance, and ventricular width. The parameters were compared between ETV and STS groups.

Results: STS was performed in 50 patients with a mean age of 46 years and ETV in 97 patients with a mean age of 36 years. STS was carried out more frequently in patients with secondary aqueductal stenosis due to a tumor (66% vs 21%), while ETV was conducted more frequently in patients with primary aqueductal stenosis (76% vs 26%). The distance between the basilar tip and clivus was significantly smaller in the STS group (2.8 vs 3.7 mm, p = 0.0007). The most common symptoms before surgery in both groups were headaches (48%), cognitive impairment (46%), and gait disorder (48%). Both procedures resulted in significant improvement of symptoms. There was no significant difference in the number of revision surgical procedures due to infection or bleeding (STS 8% vs ETV 4%) or insufficiency of the hydrocephalus treatment (STS 4% vs ETV 13%, p = 0.09). Subgroup analyses that excluded newborns and stratified results by etiology of aqueductal stenosis had no effect on the results.

Conclusions: The safety and efficacy of both surgical procedures are comparable. The selection of the surgical approach must be made on an individual basis.

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
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信