Highlights on Cerebral Arteriovenous Malformation Treatment Using Combined Embolization and Stereotactic Radiosurgery: Why Outcomes are Controversial?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Cerebral arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) are abnormal tangling between brain arteries and veins causing an arteriovenous shunt called nidus with an intervening network of vessels from the region of formation and spans through the brain. AVM effect is debilitating to the affected individual due to associated persistent intracerebral hemorrhage, resulting in significant occurrences of seizures and neurological damage. Recent innovative treatments involve a combination of embolization (Embo) procedures followed by stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), designed to optimize less-invasive practice for the obliteration of the AVMs. Three groups of investigators reported different outcomes based on obliteration rates and adverse events, making the effectiveness of options for therapy, controversial. We have taken the case-oriented-approach to highlight on varying outcomes from various studies and provide insights as to why findings from different operation settings could be so conflicting. We chose 18 articles for systematic analysis based on initial electronic database selection of 40 key papers already identified for inclusion, followed by independent blinding assessment by two co-authors. Our evaluation was based first on our specific inclusion criteria, examining method quality, obliteration rates, serious adverse events (SAEs) and mortality rates. Second, we made a comparison between SRS or embo alone treatments versus combined embo/SRS procedures, relative to AVM sizes, following Spetzler-Martin (SM) method. Third, we considered publications which had concrete statistics with well-defined P-values and clarified outcomes for accurate evaluation. We found that patients with small to medium-sized AVM were susceptible to either embo alone or SRS alone treatments, yielding obliteration rates from 71%-100%. Except for one report, giant sizes AVMs were not amenable to these single treatments, subjecting patients to embo/SRS procedures, which yielded mixed results: One group reported 52%-65% obliteration rates, compared to 23%-28% embo alone treatment. A second group contradicted this apparent beneficial outcome, obtaining obliteration rates of 53% with combined treatment compared to 71% with SRS alone, four-year postoperative. A third group reported there was no difference between single and combined treatments and obtained complete obliteration of 70%-82%, ranging from three-five-years postoperative follow-up. In all the cases analyzed, obliteration rates improved with time. SAEs, such as persistent hemorrhage and permanent neurologic deficits (P-NDs), as well as mortality, were minimal during intraoperative and postoperative follow-ups. The problem of conflicting outcomes in combined treatments of AVM by EMBO/SRS exists. Previous investigators, however, have overlooked to address this issue satisfactorily. Our analysis found that the reported inconsistencies in AVM treatment outcomes are attributable to key factors making therapy unpredictable, which includes: the size of the AVM, nidus localization and accessibility of either Embo or radiation dose applied, certain Embo materials lowering obliteration rates by masking radioactive effect on the nidus during SRS and follow-up timing for obtaining obliteration rates determine the extent of obliteration. We have indicated critical factors which require consideration when planning strategies for treatment of AVM patients and have made suggestions of how to overcome such hurdles.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,025 | 0,121 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,016 | 0,017 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».