Direct, Indirect, and Combined Extracranial-to-Intracranial Bypass for Adult Moyamoya Disease: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Moyamoya disease is a chronic, progressive cerebrovascular disease involving occlusion or stenosis of the terminal portion of the internal carotid artery. We conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate clinical and angiographic outcomes comparing direct, combined, and indirect bypass for the treatment of moyamoya disease in adults. Methods: Two independent authors performed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guided literature searches in December 2021 to identify articles reporting clinical/angiographic outcomes in adult moyamoya disease patients undergoing bypass. Primary end points used were ischemic and hemorrhagic strokes, clinical outcomes, and angiographic revascularization. Study quality was evaluated with Newcastle-Ottawa and the Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine scales. Results: Four thousand four hundred fifty seven articles were identified in the initial search; 143 articles were analyzed. There were 3827 direct, 3826 indirect, and 3801 combined bypasses. Average length of follow-up was 3.59±2.93 years. Pooled analysis significantly favored direct (odds ratio [OR], 0.62 [0.48–0.79]; P <0.0001; OR, 0.44 [0.32–0.59]; P <0.0001; OR, 0.56 [0.42–0.74]; P <0.0001; OR, 3.1 [2.5–3.8]; P =0.0001) and combined (OR, 0.53 [0.41–0.69]; P <0.0001; OR, 0.28 [0.2–0.41]; P <0.0001; OR, 0.41 [0.3–0.56]; P <0.0001; OR, 3.1 [2.8–4.3]; P =0.0001) over indirect bypass for early stroke, late stroke, late intracerebral hemorrhage, and favorable outcomes, respectively. Indirect bypass was favored over combined (OR, 3.1 [1.7–5.6]; P <0.0001) and direct (OR, 4.12 [2.34–7.25]; P <0.0001) for early intracerebral hemorrhage. The meta-analysis significantly favored direct (OR, 0.37 [0.23–0.60]; P <0.001; OR, 0.49 [0.31–0.77]; P =0.002) and combined (OR, 0.23 [0.12–0.43]; P <0.00001; OR, 0.30 [0.18–0.49]; P <0.00001) bypass over indirect bypass for late stroke and late hemorrhage, respectively. Combined bypass was favored over indirect bypass for favorable outcomes (OR, 2.06 [1.18–3.58]; P =0.01). Conclusions: Based on combined meta-analysis (43 articles) and pooled analysis (143 articles), the existing literature indicates that combined and direct bypasses have significant benefits for patients suffering from late stroke and hemorrhage versus indirect bypass. Combined bypass was favored over indirect bypass for favorable outcomes. This is a strong recommendation based on low-quality evidence when utilizing the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. These findings have important implications for bypass strategy selection.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,013 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».