未破裂颅内动脉瘤治疗的系统回顾:夹闭与卷绕。

IF 0.9 4区 医学 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Zhe Shen, Yachao Zhao, Xuanmin Gu, Junchao Fang, Jinsheng Yang, Tao Li, Bo Fan
{"title":"未破裂颅内动脉瘤治疗的系统回顾:夹闭与卷绕。","authors":"Zhe Shen, Yachao Zhao, Xuanmin Gu, Junchao Fang, Jinsheng Yang, Tao Li, Bo Fan","doi":"10.5137/1019-5149.JTN.23729-18.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To compare endovascular coiling and surgical clipping for the evaluation of clinical outcomes in patients with unruptured intracranial aneurysms.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and three Chinese domestic electronic databases, namely, Wanfang, CNKI and VIP for studies published between January 1990 and January 2018. We included controlled clinical studies comparing clinical outcomes between surgical clipping and endovascular coiling treatments. Two researchers extracted the data and assessed the quality of the studies, and a meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5 software.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We analysed a total of 23 controlled clinical studies including 117,796 cases. Meta-analysis demonstrated similar ischaemia rates between clipping and coiling with an odds ratio [OR] of 1.36 (95% CI: 0.77?2.40). The occlusion rate and bleeding risk were higher with clipping than coiling; the pooled ORs were 5.31 (95% CI: 3.07?9.19) and 2.39 (95% CI: 1.82?3.13), respectively. In addition, clipping resulted in a longer hospital stay (OR = 2.90, 95% CI: 2.14?3.65) than coiling did. Patients who underwent clipping had a higher short-term mortality (OR = 1.99, 95% CI: 1.70?2.33) and neurological deficit rate (OR = 2.05, 95% CI: 1.73? 2.44) compared with those who underwent coiling. However, 1 year mortality and deficit rate were similar for both clipping and coiling, with pooled ORs of 0.75 (95% CI: 0.41?1.38) and 0.94 (95% CI: 0.53?1.67), respectively. Funnel plots did not demonstrate a publication bias, with the exception of ischaemic outcome, and sensitivity analysis showed consistent results.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our study demonstrates that coiling is associated with a lower rate of occlusion, shorter hospital stay, lower bleeding risk and lower short-term mortality and morbidity compared with clipping. In terms of ischaemic risk, 1 year mortality and morbidity, coiling and clipping bear a similar risk. In addition, we speculate that surgical clipping may have a better outcome than endovascular coiling in the long term especially in young patients. Further research is needed to confirm our conclusion.</p>","PeriodicalId":23395,"journal":{"name":"Turkish neurosurgery","volume":"1 1","pages":"377-387"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Systematic Review of Treatment for Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms: Clipping Versus Coiling.\",\"authors\":\"Zhe Shen, Yachao Zhao, Xuanmin Gu, Junchao Fang, Jinsheng Yang, Tao Li, Bo Fan\",\"doi\":\"10.5137/1019-5149.JTN.23729-18.1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To compare endovascular coiling and surgical clipping for the evaluation of clinical outcomes in patients with unruptured intracranial aneurysms.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and three Chinese domestic electronic databases, namely, Wanfang, CNKI and VIP for studies published between January 1990 and January 2018. We included controlled clinical studies comparing clinical outcomes between surgical clipping and endovascular coiling treatments. Two researchers extracted the data and assessed the quality of the studies, and a meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5 software.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We analysed a total of 23 controlled clinical studies including 117,796 cases. Meta-analysis demonstrated similar ischaemia rates between clipping and coiling with an odds ratio [OR] of 1.36 (95% CI: 0.77?2.40). The occlusion rate and bleeding risk were higher with clipping than coiling; the pooled ORs were 5.31 (95% CI: 3.07?9.19) and 2.39 (95% CI: 1.82?3.13), respectively. In addition, clipping resulted in a longer hospital stay (OR = 2.90, 95% CI: 2.14?3.65) than coiling did. Patients who underwent clipping had a higher short-term mortality (OR = 1.99, 95% CI: 1.70?2.33) and neurological deficit rate (OR = 2.05, 95% CI: 1.73? 2.44) compared with those who underwent coiling. However, 1 year mortality and deficit rate were similar for both clipping and coiling, with pooled ORs of 0.75 (95% CI: 0.41?1.38) and 0.94 (95% CI: 0.53?1.67), respectively. Funnel plots did not demonstrate a publication bias, with the exception of ischaemic outcome, and sensitivity analysis showed consistent results.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our study demonstrates that coiling is associated with a lower rate of occlusion, shorter hospital stay, lower bleeding risk and lower short-term mortality and morbidity compared with clipping. In terms of ischaemic risk, 1 year mortality and morbidity, coiling and clipping bear a similar risk. In addition, we speculate that surgical clipping may have a better outcome than endovascular coiling in the long term especially in young patients. Further research is needed to confirm our conclusion.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23395,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Turkish neurosurgery\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"377-387\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Turkish neurosurgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5137/1019-5149.JTN.23729-18.1\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkish neurosurgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5137/1019-5149.JTN.23729-18.1","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:近年来,未破裂的颅内动脉瘤越来越常见,血管内旋转治疗也越来越受欢迎:近年来,未破裂的颅内动脉瘤被发现的频率越来越高,血管内旋转治疗成为越来越受欢迎的治疗方法:检索1990年至2018年间的计算机数据库,数据库包括Medline、EMBASE、Cochrane图书馆和三个中国国内数据库。我们纳入了对照临床研究。两名研究人员对纳入的研究进行了数据提取和评估。结果:我们分析了 23 项研究,包括 117796 个病例。荟萃分析表明,夹闭和卷紮的缺血率相似(OR=1.36,95%CI:0.77-2.40)。剪切术的闭塞率和出血风险高于卷紮术;OR 分别为 5.31(95%CI:3.07-9.19)和 2.39(95%CI:1.82-3.13)。此外,剪切术的住院时间(OR=2.90,95%CI:2.14-3.65)也比夹闭术长。与接受夹闭术的患者相比,接受剪闭术的患者的短期死亡率(OR=1.99,95%CI:1.70-2.33)和缺损率(OR=2.05,95%CI:1.73-2.44)更高。然而,剪切术和钳夹术的 1 年死亡率和缺损率显示出相似的水平;OR=0.75(95%CI:0.41-1.38)和 0.94(95%CI:0.53-1.67)。漏斗图未发现发表偏倚。敏感性分析显示结果一致:研究表明,与剪切术相比,旋切术与较低的闭塞率、较短的住院时间、较低的出血风险以及较低的短期死亡率和发病率相关。就缺血风险、1 年死亡率和发病率而言,钳夹术和剪切术的风险相似。我们认为,从长远来看,剪切术可能比夹闭术效果更好,尤其是对年轻患者而言。要证实我们的结论,还需要进一步的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Systematic Review of Treatment for Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms: Clipping Versus Coiling.

Aim: To compare endovascular coiling and surgical clipping for the evaluation of clinical outcomes in patients with unruptured intracranial aneurysms.

Material and methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and three Chinese domestic electronic databases, namely, Wanfang, CNKI and VIP for studies published between January 1990 and January 2018. We included controlled clinical studies comparing clinical outcomes between surgical clipping and endovascular coiling treatments. Two researchers extracted the data and assessed the quality of the studies, and a meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5 software.

Results: We analysed a total of 23 controlled clinical studies including 117,796 cases. Meta-analysis demonstrated similar ischaemia rates between clipping and coiling with an odds ratio [OR] of 1.36 (95% CI: 0.77?2.40). The occlusion rate and bleeding risk were higher with clipping than coiling; the pooled ORs were 5.31 (95% CI: 3.07?9.19) and 2.39 (95% CI: 1.82?3.13), respectively. In addition, clipping resulted in a longer hospital stay (OR = 2.90, 95% CI: 2.14?3.65) than coiling did. Patients who underwent clipping had a higher short-term mortality (OR = 1.99, 95% CI: 1.70?2.33) and neurological deficit rate (OR = 2.05, 95% CI: 1.73? 2.44) compared with those who underwent coiling. However, 1 year mortality and deficit rate were similar for both clipping and coiling, with pooled ORs of 0.75 (95% CI: 0.41?1.38) and 0.94 (95% CI: 0.53?1.67), respectively. Funnel plots did not demonstrate a publication bias, with the exception of ischaemic outcome, and sensitivity analysis showed consistent results.

Conclusion: Our study demonstrates that coiling is associated with a lower rate of occlusion, shorter hospital stay, lower bleeding risk and lower short-term mortality and morbidity compared with clipping. In terms of ischaemic risk, 1 year mortality and morbidity, coiling and clipping bear a similar risk. In addition, we speculate that surgical clipping may have a better outcome than endovascular coiling in the long term especially in young patients. Further research is needed to confirm our conclusion.

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
Turkish neurosurgery
Turkish neurosurgery 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
12.50%
发文量
126
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Turkish Neurosurgery is a peer-reviewed, multidisciplinary, open access and totally free journal directed at an audience of neurosurgery physicians and scientists. The official language of the journal is English. The journal publishes original articles in the form of clinical and basic research. Turkish Neurosurgery will only publish studies that have institutional review board (IRB) approval and have strictly observed an acceptable follow-up period. With the exception of reference presentation, Turkish Neurosurgery requires that all manuscripts be prepared in accordance with the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals.
×
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