三叉神经痛微血管减压术中特氟隆与自体肌肉介入的远期疗效比较。

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Johann Klein, Barbara Carl
{"title":"三叉神经痛微血管减压术中特氟隆与自体肌肉介入的远期疗效比较。","authors":"Johann Klein, Barbara Carl","doi":"10.1007/s10143-025-03882-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Microvascular decompression (MVD) is an established surgical procedure for treating classical trigeminal neuralgia (TN) by separating the trigeminal nerve from an offending vessel. Various materials can be used for interposition, Teflon being the standard in many centers. Autologous muscle is used as an alternative; however, comparative studies are sparse. We compared the outcomes of patients who underwent MVD for TN with either Teflon or muscle in the same center. We searched our database for patients who underwent MVD for TN between 2007 and 2024. The records were analyzed for outcome parameters, and patients or their relatives were contacted via phone if follow-up data were insufficient. Exclusion criteria included repeat MVD, lack of initial improvement after surgery, and loss to follow-up. The primary outcome parameter was treatment failure, defined as Barrow Neurological Institute (BNI) pain intensity score IV or V. 70 patients were identified. After applying the exclusion criteria, 48 were available for the outcome analysis, among whom 21 had received interposition with muscle and 27 with Teflon. The mean patient age was 65 years, 56.25% were female, and the pain was right-sided in 62.5% of patients. At a mean follow-up of 85 months, 12.5% had experienced treatment failure (14.29% in the muscle group and 11.11% in the Teflon group; p = 0.741). Kaplan-Meier analysis with log-rank test and logistic regression analysis revealed no significant differences. We found no differences in the outcomes of MVD for TN when either autologous muscle or Teflon was used. Both materials are appropriate for interposition.</p>","PeriodicalId":19184,"journal":{"name":"Neurosurgical Review","volume":"48 1","pages":"689"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comparison of long-term outcomes between interposition with teflon and autologous muscle in microvascular decompression for trigeminal neuralgia.\",\"authors\":\"Johann Klein, Barbara Carl\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10143-025-03882-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Microvascular decompression (MVD) is an established surgical procedure for treating classical trigeminal neuralgia (TN) by separating the trigeminal nerve from an offending vessel. Various materials can be used for interposition, Teflon being the standard in many centers. Autologous muscle is used as an alternative; however, comparative studies are sparse. We compared the outcomes of patients who underwent MVD for TN with either Teflon or muscle in the same center. We searched our database for patients who underwent MVD for TN between 2007 and 2024. The records were analyzed for outcome parameters, and patients or their relatives were contacted via phone if follow-up data were insufficient. Exclusion criteria included repeat MVD, lack of initial improvement after surgery, and loss to follow-up. The primary outcome parameter was treatment failure, defined as Barrow Neurological Institute (BNI) pain intensity score IV or V. 70 patients were identified. After applying the exclusion criteria, 48 were available for the outcome analysis, among whom 21 had received interposition with muscle and 27 with Teflon. The mean patient age was 65 years, 56.25% were female, and the pain was right-sided in 62.5% of patients. At a mean follow-up of 85 months, 12.5% had experienced treatment failure (14.29% in the muscle group and 11.11% in the Teflon group; p = 0.741). Kaplan-Meier analysis with log-rank test and logistic regression analysis revealed no significant differences. We found no differences in the outcomes of MVD for TN when either autologous muscle or Teflon was used. Both materials are appropriate for interposition.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19184,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neurosurgical Review\",\"volume\":\"48 1\",\"pages\":\"689\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neurosurgical Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-025-03882-7\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurosurgical Review","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-025-03882-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

微血管减压术(MVD)是一种通过分离三叉神经与侵犯血管来治疗经典三叉神经痛(TN)的手术方法。各种材料可用于插口,特氟龙是许多中心的标准材料。自体肌肉被用作替代物;然而,比较研究很少。我们比较了因TN而接受MVD的患者在同一中心使用特氟龙或肌肉的结果。我们检索了数据库中2007年至2024年间因TN而接受MVD的患者。对记录进行结果参数分析,如果随访数据不足,则通过电话联系患者或其亲属。排除标准包括重复MVD、术后缺乏初始改善和随访失败。主要结局参数为治疗失败,定义为Barrow Neurological Institute (BNI)疼痛强度评分IV或v。应用排除标准后,48例可用于结果分析,其中21例接受肌肉干预,27例接受特氟龙干预。患者平均年龄65岁,女性占56.25%,右侧疼痛占62.5%。平均随访85个月,12.5%的患者出现治疗失败(肌肉组14.29%,特氟龙组11.11%,p = 0.741)。Kaplan-Meier分析、log-rank检验和logistic回归分析显示差异无统计学意义。我们发现自体肌肉或特氟龙对TN的MVD结果没有差异。这两种材料都适合用于插入。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A comparison of long-term outcomes between interposition with teflon and autologous muscle in microvascular decompression for trigeminal neuralgia.

Microvascular decompression (MVD) is an established surgical procedure for treating classical trigeminal neuralgia (TN) by separating the trigeminal nerve from an offending vessel. Various materials can be used for interposition, Teflon being the standard in many centers. Autologous muscle is used as an alternative; however, comparative studies are sparse. We compared the outcomes of patients who underwent MVD for TN with either Teflon or muscle in the same center. We searched our database for patients who underwent MVD for TN between 2007 and 2024. The records were analyzed for outcome parameters, and patients or their relatives were contacted via phone if follow-up data were insufficient. Exclusion criteria included repeat MVD, lack of initial improvement after surgery, and loss to follow-up. The primary outcome parameter was treatment failure, defined as Barrow Neurological Institute (BNI) pain intensity score IV or V. 70 patients were identified. After applying the exclusion criteria, 48 were available for the outcome analysis, among whom 21 had received interposition with muscle and 27 with Teflon. The mean patient age was 65 years, 56.25% were female, and the pain was right-sided in 62.5% of patients. At a mean follow-up of 85 months, 12.5% had experienced treatment failure (14.29% in the muscle group and 11.11% in the Teflon group; p = 0.741). Kaplan-Meier analysis with log-rank test and logistic regression analysis revealed no significant differences. We found no differences in the outcomes of MVD for TN when either autologous muscle or Teflon was used. Both materials are appropriate for interposition.

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
Neurosurgical Review
Neurosurgical Review 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
7.10%
发文量
191
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The goal of Neurosurgical Review is to provide a forum for comprehensive reviews on current issues in neurosurgery. Each issue contains up to three reviews, reflecting all important aspects of one topic (a disease or a surgical approach). Comments by a panel of experts within the same issue complete the topic. By providing comprehensive coverage of one topic per issue, Neurosurgical Review combines the topicality of professional journals with the indepth treatment of a monograph. Original papers of high quality are also 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