BACKGROUND: Preoperative embolization has traditionally been regarded as a safe and effective adjunct to microsurgical treatment of brain arteriovenous malformations (bAVM). However, there is currently no high-level evidence to ascertain this presumption. OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of microsurgery (MS) vs microsurgery with preoperative embolization (E + MS) in patients with bAVM through systematic review. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, and Embase. The primary outcome was bAVM obliteration. Secondary outcomes were intraoperative bleeding (mL), complications, worsened modified Rankin Scale (mRS), and mortality. The pooled proportions of outcomes were calculated through the logit transformation method. The odds ratio (OR) of categorical data and mean difference of continuous data were estimated through the Mantel-Haenszel and the inverse variance methods, respectively. RESULTS: Thirty-two studies met the eligibility criteria. One thousand eight hundred twenty-eight patients were treated by microsurgery alone, and 1088 were treated by microsurgery with preoperative embolization, respectively. The meta-analysis revealed no significant difference in AVM obliteration (94.1% vs 95.6%, OR = 1.15 [0.63-2.11], P = .65), mortality (1.7% vs 2%, OR = 0.88 [0.30-2.58], P = .82), procedural complications (18.2% vs 27.2%, OR = 0.47 [0.19-1.17], P = .10), worsened mRS (21.2% vs 18.5%, OR = 1.08 [0.33-3.54], P = .9), and intraoperative blood loss (mean difference = 182.89 [À87.76, 453.55], P = .19). CONCLUSION: The meta-analysis showed no significant difference in AVM obliteration, mortality, complications, worse mRS, and intraoperative blood loss between MS and E + MS groups. For AVMs where MS alone has acceptable results, it is reasonable to bypass unnecessary preoperative embolization given higher postoperative complication risk.

BACKGROUND: Treatment decision-making for brain arteriovenous malformations (bAVMs) with microsurgery or stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is controversial. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare microsurgery vs SRS for bAVMs. METHOD: Medline and PubMed were searched from inception to June 21, 2022. The primary outcomes were obliteration and follow-up hemorrhage, and secondary outcomes were permanent neurological deficit, worsened modified Rankin scale (mRS), follow-up mRS > 2, and mortality. The GRADE approach was used for grading the level of evidence. RESULTS: Eight studies were included, which yielded 817 patients, of which 432 (52.8%) and 385 (47.1%) patients underwent microsurgery and SRS, respectively. Two cohorts were comparable in age, sex, Spetzler-Martin grade, nidus size, location, deep venous drainage, eloquence, and follow-up. In the microsurgery group, the odds ratio (OR) of obliteration was higher (OR = 18.51 [11.05, 31.01], P < .000001, evidence: high) and the hazard ratio of follow-up hemorrhage was lower (hazard ratio = 0.47 [0.23, 0.97], P = .04, evidence: moderate). The OR of permanent neurological deficit was higher with microsurgery (OR = 2.85 [1.63, 4.97], P = .0002, evidence: low), whereas the OR of worsened mRS (OR = 1.24 [0.65, 2.38], P = .52, evidence: moderate), follow-up mRS > 2 (OR = 0.78 [0.36, 1.7], P = .53, evidence: moderate), and mortality (OR = 1.17 [0.41, 3.3], P = .77, evidence: moderate) were comparable between the groups. CONCLUSION: Microsurgery was superior at obliterating bAVMs and preventing further hemorrhage. Despite a higher rate of postoperative neurological deficit with microsurgery, functional status and mortality were comparable with patients who underwent SRS. Microsurgery should remain a first-line consideration for bAVMs, with SRS reserved for inaccessible locations, highly eloquent areas, and medically high-risk or unwilling patients.

OBJECTIVE In microvascular decompression (MVD) surgery through the retrosigmoid approach, the surgeon may have to sacrifice the superior petrosal vein (SPV). However, this is a controversial maneuver. To date, high-level evidence comparing the operative outcomes of patients who underwent MVD with and without SPV sacrifice is lacking. Therefore, this study sought to bridge this gap. METHODS The authors searched the Medline and PubMed databases with appropriate Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms and keywords. The primary outcome was vascular-related complications; secondary outcomes were new neurological deficit, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak, and neuralgia relief. The pooled proportions of outcomes and OR (95% CI) for categorical data were calculated by using the logit transformation and Mantel-Haenszel methods, respectively. RESULTS Six studies yielding 1143 patients were included, of which 618 patients had their SPV sacrificed. The pooled proportion (95% CI) values were 3.82 (0.87–15.17) for vascular-related complications, 3.64 (1.0–12.42) for new neurological deficits, 2.85 (1.21–6.58) for CSF leaks, and 88.90 (84.90–91.94) for neuralgia relief. The meta-analysis concluded that, whether the surgeon sacrificed or preserved the SPV, the odds were similar for vascular-related complications (2.5% vs 1.5%, OR [95% CI] 1.01 [0.33–3.09], p = 0.99), new neurological deficits (1.2% vs 2.8%, OR [95% CI] 0.55 [0.18–1.66], p = 0.29), CSF leak (3.1% vs 2.1%, OR [95% CI] 1.16 [0.46–2.94], p = 0.75), and neuralgia relief (86.6% vs 87%, OR [95% CI] 0.96 [0.62–1.49], p = 0.84). CONCLUSIONS SPV sacrifice is as safe as SPV preservation. The authors recommend intentional SPV sacrifice when gentle retraction fails to enhance surgical field visualization and if the surgeon encounters SPV-related neurovascular conflict and/or anticipates impeding SPV-related bleeding.

BACKGROUND:The results from studies that compare middle meningeal artery (MMA) embolization vs conventional management for patients with chronic subdural hematoma are varied. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on studies that compared MMA embolization vs conventional management. METHODS: Medline, PubMed, and Embase databases were searched. Primary outcomes were treatment failure and surgical rescue; secondary outcomes were complications, follow-up modified Rankin scale > 2, mortality, complete hematoma resolution, and length of hospital stay (day). The certainty of the evidence was determined using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Nine studies yielding 1523 patients were enrolled, of which 337 (22.2%) and 1186 (77.8%) patients received MMA embolization and conventional management, respectively. MMA embolization was superior to conventional management for treatment failure (relative risk [RR] = 0.34 [0.14-0.82], P = .02), surgical rescue (RR = 0.33 [0.14-0.77], P = .01), and complete hematoma resolution (RR = 2.01 [1.10-3.68], P = .02). There was no difference between the 2 groups for complications (RR = 0.93 [0.63-1.37], P = .72), follow-up modified Rankin scale >2 (RR = 0.78 [0.449-1.25], P = .31), mortality (RR = 1.05 [0.51-2.14], P = .89), and length of hospital stay (mean difference = À0.57 [À2.55, 1.41], P = .57). For MMA embolization, the number needed to treat for treatment failure, surgical rescue, and complete hematoma resolution was 7, 9, and 3, respectively. The certainty of the evidence was moderate to high for primary outcomes and low to moderate for secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: MMA embolization decreases treatment failure and the need for surgical rescue without furthering the risk of morbidity and mortality. The authors recommend considering MMA embolization in the chronic subdural hematoma management.

No abstract