Onyx versus nBCA and coils in the treatment of intracranial dural arteriovenous fistulas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Intracranial dural arteriovenous fistulas (DAVFs) with cortical venous drainage have significant morbidity and mortality. Complete closure of these lesions is necessary to reduce these risks. The purpose of our study was to compare the outcome of DAVFs treated with Onyx versus those treated with n-Butyl Cyanoacrylate (nBCA) and coil embolization in a case-control study. Compared with nBCA and coil embolization, we hypothesized that Onyx embolization for DAVF is safer and has a higher chance of complete obliteration, with no need for post-embolization surgery for the DAVF. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 1998 to 2015, 29 patients who had DAVFs were treated with endovascular embolization. Of these, 24 patients had imaging available for analysis. Successful closure rates, complications, and procedure time were compared between the embolization techniques. RESULTS: The chance of not requiring post-embolization surgery with Onyx (81.8%) was significantly higher (p = 0.005) than with nBCA (22.22%). The complication rate with Onyx (9.1%) tended to be lower compared with that of nBCA (22.22%; p = 0.37). Procedural time was not significantly different between Onyx (mean 267 minutes) and nBCA (mean 288 minutes) (p = 0.59). The odds ratio of a DAVF being treated with Onyx and then requiring no follow-up surgery was 17.5 (95% CI 1.97-155.4). CONCLUSION: Our case-control study suggests that Onyx embolization is superior to nBCA and coil embolization in completely obliterating DAVFs, with higher odds of no post-embolization surgery. We also found that Onyx is safe for embolization of DAVFs, with no associated neurological mortality and morbidity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".