Embolización endovascular de la arteria meníngea media para el tratamiento de hematomas subdurales crónicos: efectividad, seguridad y controversia actual. Revisión sistemática
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dadas las altas tasas de recurrencia, el hematoma subdural crónico (HSDC) es una condición que supone un reto para el clínico. La embolización endovascular de la arteria meníngea media (EeAMM) ha surgido como una alternativa para aquellos pacientes con problemas de salud o con varias recurrencias de su HSDC. A pesar de la publicación de algunos artículos prometedores referentes a esta técnica, el perfil de seguridad, las indicaciones y las limitaciones no están claramente establecidas. Nuestro objetivo es evaluar la evidencia actual sobre la EeAMM en el HSDC. Se realizó una revisión sistemática de la literatura según las guías PRISMA. Nuestra búsqueda arrojó un total de 6 estudios, en los que 164 pacientes con HSDC se sometieron a EeAMM. La tasa de recurrencia entre todos los estudios fue del 6,7% y se produjeron complicaciones en hasta el 6% de los pacientes. La EeAMM es una técnica factible en el tratamiento del HSDC con una tasa de recurrencia relativamente baja y tasas aceptables de complicaciones. Se necesitan más estudios prospectivos y aleatorizados para establecer formalmente un perfil de seguridad claro y su efectividad. Chronic subdural haematoma (CSDH) represents a clinical challenge due to its high recurrence rate. Endovascular middle meningeal artery embolisation (eMMAE) has emerged as an alternative for those patients presenting health problems or multiple recurrences of CSDH. Despite several encouraging reports, the safety profile, indications, and limitations of the technique are not clearly established. This study aimed to evaluate the current evidence on eMMAE in patients with CSDH. We performed a systematic review of the literature, following the PRISMA guidelines. Our search yielded a total of 6 studies, in which a total of 164 patients with CSDH underwent eMMAE. The recurrence rate across all studies was 6.7%, and complications occurred in up to 6% of patients. eMMAE is a feasible technique for treating CSDH, with a relatively low recurrence rate and an acceptable rate of complications. Further prospective and randomised studies are needed to formally establish a clear profile of the safety and effectiveness of the technique.
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 | 0.011 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".