Literature DB >> 15046648

Surgical risks associated with the management of Grade I and II brain arteriovenous malformations.

Michael Kerin Morgan1, Andrew Michael Rochford, Antonio Tsahtsarlis, Nicholas Little, Kenneth Charles Faulder.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Grade I and II arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) have been considered safe to resect. However, unoperated low-grade AVMs have not been considered in previously reported series. The aim of this study was to examine all cases, both operated and unoperated, to identify any characteristics of low-grade AVMs that comprise a subgroup that might pose a relatively higher risk.
METHODS: A prospectively enrolled AVM database included 237 patients in Spetzler-Martin Grade I or II. These patients were analyzed on the basis of demographic characteristics, angiographic and magnetic resonance imaging features, clinical presentation, method of treatment, and outcome.
RESULTS: Surgery was performed in 220 patients in Spetzler-Martin Grade I or II. Seventeen patients did not undergo treatment because of poor neurological condition (six patients), patient refusal (nine patients), and perceived surgical difficulty (AVM size approaching 3 cm adjacent to Broca's area) (two patients). The overall surgical morbidity rate was 0.9%, and the mortality rate was 0.5%. Adverse outcomes occurred in 1 (0.6%) of 180 patients with AVMs located away from eloquent cortex and in 2 (5%) of 40 patients with AVMs adjacent to eloquent cortex. None of 28 surgical patients with deep venous drainage had an adverse outcome. All 219 patients who survived surgery underwent postoperative angiography that confirmed cure. No postoperative hemorrhage has occurred in 1143 patient-years of follow-up (mean follow-up, 5.3 yr).
CONCLUSION: When considering adverse outcome in the surgical series of Grade I and II AVMs alone, no statistical difference between non-eloquently located AVMs (0.6%) and eloquently located AVMs (5% adverse outcome) can be detected. However, consideration of all Grade I and II AVMs, both surgical and nonsurgical, may prove that a difference in outcome exists between these two groups masked by case selection. Generalization of the chances of adverse outcomes to all Grade I and II AVMs (both operated and unoperated) suggests that the risk of performing surgery on noneloquent brain in our series was 0.6% and that in eloquent brain could have been as high as 9.5%, had all such patients undergone surgery.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15046648     DOI: 10.1227/01.neu.0000114264.78966.be

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurosurgery        ISSN: 0148-396X            Impact factor:   4.654


  10 in total

1.  Cost determinants in management of brain arteriovenous malformations.

Authors:  Caleb Rutledge; Jeffrey Nelson; Alex Lu; Peyton Nisson; Soren Jonzzon; Ethan A Winkler; Daniel Cooke; Adib A Abla; Michael T Lawton; Helen Kim
Journal:  Acta Neurochir (Wien)       Date:  2019-11-23       Impact factor: 2.216

2.  A case of complex arteriovenous malformation with skull destruction presented in sixth decade of life.

Authors:  Stevo Lukic; Mirjana Spasic; Zoran Peric; Dejan Savic; Slobodan Vojinovic; Dragan Stojanov; Srdjan Ljubisavljević
Journal:  Neurol Sci       Date:  2011-01-14       Impact factor: 3.307

3.  Embolization as one modality in a combined strategy for the management of cerebral arteriovenous malformations.

Authors:  J Raymond; D Iancu; A Weill; F Guilbert; J P Bahary; M Bojanowski; D Roy
Journal:  Interv Neuroradiol       Date:  2005-10-27       Impact factor: 1.610

4.  Current surgical results with low-grade brain arteriovenous malformations.

Authors:  Matthew B Potts; Darryl Lau; Adib A Abla; Helen Kim; William L Young; Michael T Lawton
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  2015-02-06       Impact factor: 5.115

5.  The ARUBA trial: current status, future hopes.

Authors:  J P Mohr; Alan J Moskowitz; Christian Stapf; Andreas Hartmann; Karen Lord; Steven M Marshall; Henning Mast; Ellen Moquete; Claudia Scala Moy; Michael Parides; John Pile-Spellman; Rustam Al-Shahi Salman; Alan Weinberg; William L Young; Alejandrina Estevez; Inam Kureshi; Jonathan L Brisman
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2010-07-15       Impact factor: 7.914

6.  Treatment and outcomes of ARUBA-eligible patients with unruptured brain arteriovenous malformations at a single institution.

Authors:  W Caleb Rutledge; Adib A Abla; Jeffrey Nelson; Van V Halbach; Helen Kim; Michael T Lawton
Journal:  Neurosurg Focus       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 4.047

7.  Diagnosis and evaluation of intracranial arteriovenous malformations.

Authors:  Andrew Conger; Charles Kulwin; Michael T Lawton; Aaron A Cohen-Gadol
Journal:  Surg Neurol Int       Date:  2015-05-12

Review 8.  Experimental Animal Models of Arteriovenous Malformation: A Review.

Authors:  Jude Amal Raj; Marcus Stoodley
Journal:  Vet Sci       Date:  2015-06-19

Review 9.  Chinese Cerebrovascular Neurosurgery Society and Chinese Interventional & Hybrid Operation Society, of Chinese Stroke Association Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Brain Arteriovenous Malformations in Eloquent Areas.

Authors:  Mingze Wang; Yuming Jiao; Chaofan Zeng; Chaoqi Zhang; Qiheng He; Yi Yang; Wenjun Tu; Hancheng Qiu; Huaizhang Shi; Dong Zhang; Dezhi Kang; Shuo Wang; A-Li Liu; Weijian Jiang; Yong Cao; Jizong Zhao
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2021-06-09       Impact factor: 4.003

10.  Intraoperative Anatomical and Hemodynamic Analysis of Intracerebral Arteriovenous Malformations by Semi-quantitative Color-coded Indocyanine Green Videoangiography.

Authors:  Yoko Kato; Yasuhiro Yamada; Akiyo Sadato; Mohsen Nouri; Iype Cherian; Teppei Tanaka; Joji Inamasu
Journal:  Asian J Neurosurg       Date:  2017 Oct-Dec
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.