Pica(排版)
医学
荟萃分析
外科
内科学
万维网
计算机科学
作者
Leonardo de Barros Oliveira,Marcelo Porto Sousa,Gabriel da Silva Semione,Márcio Yuri Ferreira,Sávio Batista,Lucca B. Palavani,Filipi Fim Andreão,Juliana Belo Diniz,Nícollas Nunes Rabelo,Raphael Bertani,Leonardo C. Welling,Michael T. Lawton,Eberval Gadelha Figueiredo
标识
DOI:10.1016/j.wneu.2024.02.153
摘要
When traditional therapies are unsuitable, revascularization becomes essential for managing posterior inferior cerebellar artery (PICA) or vertebral artery aneurysms. Notably, the PICA-PICA bypass has emerged as a promising option, overshadowing the occipital artery-PICA (OA-PICA) bypass. To compare the safety and efficacy of OA-PICA and PICA-PICA bypasses. Following PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of OA-PICA and PICA-PICA bypasses for treating posterior circulation aneurysms. We analyzed 13 studies for the PICA-PICA bypass and 16 studies on the OA-PICA bypass, involving 84 and 110 patients, respectively. The median average follow-up for PICA-PICA bypass was 8 months (2 - 50.3 months), while for OA-PICA, it was 27.8 months (6 - 84 months). The patency rate for OA-PICA was 97% (95% CI: 92% - 100%) and 100% (95% CI: 95% - 100%) for PICA-PICA. Complication rates were 29% (95% CI: 10% - 47%) for OA-PICA and 12% (95% CI: 3% - 21%) for PICA-PICA. Good clinical outcomes were observed in 71% (95% CI: 52% - 90%) of OA-PICA patients and 87% (95% CI: 75% - 100% of PICA-PICA patients. Procedure-related mortality was 1% (95% CI: 0% - 6%) for OA-PICA and 1% (95% CI: 0% - 10%) for PICA-PICA. Both procedures have demonstrated promising results in efficacy and safety. PICA-PICA exhibits slightly better patency rates, better clinical outcomes, and fewer complications, but with a lack of substantial follow-up and a smaller sample size. The choice between these procedures should be based on the surgeon's expertise and the patient's anatomy.
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI