Surgical Morbidity in Relation to the Surgical Approach for Olfactory Groove Meningiomas—A Pooled Analysis of 1016 Patients and Proposal of a New Reporting System
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: There is currently no consensus in the field regarding whether a frontal or lateral approach is superior for microsurgical resection of olfactory groove meningiomas (OGM). Due to the lack of uniformity in classifying lesions and inherent differences in reporting outcomes after varying operative approaches, the best practice for approaching these lesions is yet to be determined. Objective: This study aimed to assess various surgical approaches undertaken for OGMs, investigate procedural aspects influencing the extent of resection, and analyze the respective complication rate associated with each approach. We performed a comprehensive literature review of presenting signs and symptoms in OGM patients, their surgical management, and the reported surgical outcomes. To address the lack of uniform data reporting across studies and to take more recent translational studies into account, we developed a new classification system for OGMs that can remedy the existing deficiencies in comparability of reporting. Methods: We conducted a PRISMA-guided literature search for surgical reports on OGMs published in the MRI era using broad search terms such as ‘olfactory groove meningioma’ and ‘surgery’, which yielded 20,672 results. After title screening and removal of duplicates, we assessed 871 studies on the specific surgical management of olfactory groove meningiomas. Following the application of exclusion criteria and abstract screening, a set of 27 studies was chosen for the final analysis of a pooled cohort of these reported patient outcomes. Results: The final twenty-seven studies included in our in-depth analysis identified a total of 1016 individual patients who underwent open microsurgical resection of OGMs. The approaches used included: pterional/unilateral, bifrontal with variations, and anterior interhemispheric approaches. Across all studies, gross total resection (Simpson Grades I or II) was achieved in 91.4% of cases, and subtotal resection (Grades III and IV) was reported in 8.6% of cases. A cumulative twenty-seven percent of surgical OGM patients sustained some form of complications. Minor issues accounted for 22.2% (CSF leak, seizures, infection, transient cranial nerve palsies, hydrocephalus), whereas major issues comprised 4.7% (hemorrhage, ischemic infarct, malignant cerebral edema). We then examined the correlation between these complications and the surgical approach chosen. Among pooled cohort of 426 patients who underwent unilateral approaches, 14% experienced minor complications, and 2.1% experienced major complications. For the mixed cohort of 410 patients who underwent bifrontal approaches, 24.6% experienced minor complications, and 7% experienced major complications. Conclusions: Unilateral approaches appear to have lower complication rates for the resection of OGMs compared to bilateral approaches. However, the extent of resection is not uniformly reported, making it difficult to identify differences. The use of an improved preoperative classification and scoring system can help establish a more coherent system to select the most suitable approach and to uniformly report surgical outcomes, such as EOR and complication rates specific to a given OGM and its surgical approach.
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 | 0,006 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| 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) | 0,000 | 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 ».