Surgical management of pediatric rolandic arteriovenous malformations: a single-center case series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Pediatric rolandic arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) present a treatment challenge given the lifetime risk of hemorrhage, rehemorrhage, and associated long-term morbidity. Microsurgical resection has been recommended as the optimal treatment for AVMs in general, but there is no dedicated literature on the outcomes of resection of pediatric rolandic AVMs. Here, the study objective was to review the outcomes of microsurgical resection of pediatric rolandic AVMs in the modern era, together with the utilization of surgical adjuncts including navigation, intraoperative angiography, and neurophysiological monitoring. METHODS: The authors performed a retrospective review of patients 18 years of age and younger with cerebral AVMs microsurgically treated between January 2000 and May 2016 at The Hospital for Sick Children. Only those patients with an AVM whose nidus was located within the rolandic region were analyzed. A descriptive analysis was performed to identify patient demographics, preoperative AVM characteristics, and postoperative obliteration rates and neurological complications. RESULTS: A total of 279 AVMs were evaluated in the study period. Twenty-three of these AVMs were rolandic, and the median age in the 11 microsurgically treated cases was 11 years (range 1-17 years). AVM hemorrhage was the most common presentation, occurring in 8 patients (73%). Lesions were either Spetzler-Martin grade II (n = 8, 73%) or grade III (n = 3, 27%). The postoperative obliteration rate of AVMs was 100%. The mean imaging follow-up duration was 33 months (range 5-164 months). There was no documented recurrence of an AVM during follow-up. One patient developed a transient postoperative hemiparesis, while another patient developed right fingertip hyperesthesia. CONCLUSIONS: Microsurgical resection of rolandic pediatric AVMs yields excellent AVM obliteration with minimal neurological morbidity in selected patients. The incorporation of surgical adjuncts, including neurophysiological monitoring and neuronavigation, allows accurate demarcation of functional cortex and enables effective resection.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".