Matthias Bechstein1, Rosalie McDonough2,3, Jens Fiehler2, Umberto Zanolini2, Hamid Rai4, Adnan Siddiqui4, Eimad Shotar5, Aymeric Rouchaud6, Mayank Goyal3, Susanne Gellissen2. 1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany. m.bechstein@uke.de. 2. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany. 3. Department of Radiology, University of Calgary Cumming School of Medicine, Calgary, AB, Canada. 4. Department of Neurosurgery, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA. 5. Neuroradiology Department, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, France. 6. Neuroradiology Department, Dupuytren, University Hospital of Limoges, Limoges Cedex, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The methodology of measuring chronic subdural hematoma (cSDH) extent and its effect on intracranial structures is relevant for patient classification and outcome measurements and affects the external validity of cSDH studies. With embolization of the middle meningeal artery (MMA) as a possible treatment of cSDHs, the topic has gained substantial interest. We sought to summarize the heterogeneity of radiologic measurements, specifically in the evaluation of cSDHs based on literature review. METHODS: In this review, we identified and described the most common radiological methodologies for measurements of cSDH thickness, cSDH volume and of midline shift. CONCLUSION: There are numerous published methods on how to evaluate cSDH thickness, cSDH volume and midline shift but no common standard. The definition of measurement methods and reporting standards for MMA embolization in cSDH patients and their validation needs to be addressed.
BACKGROUND: The methodology of measuring chronic subdural hematoma (cSDH) extent and its effect on intracranial structures is relevant for patient classification and outcome measurements and affects the external validity of cSDH studies. With embolization of the middle meningeal artery (MMA) as a possible treatment of cSDHs, the topic has gained substantial interest. We sought to summarize the heterogeneity of radiologic measurements, specifically in the evaluation of cSDHs based on literature review. METHODS: In this review, we identified and described the most common radiological methodologies for measurements of cSDH thickness, cSDH volume and of midline shift. CONCLUSION: There are numerous published methods on how to evaluate cSDH thickness, cSDH volume and midline shift but no common standard. The definition of measurement methods and reporting standards for MMA embolization in cSDH patients and their validation needs to be addressed.
Authors: J M Gebel; C A Sila; M A Sloan; C B Granger; J P Weisenberger; C L Green; E J Topol; K W Mahaffey Journal: Stroke Date: 1998-09 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Ellie Edlmann; Susan Giorgi-Coll; Peter C Whitfield; Keri L H Carpenter; Peter J Hutchinson Journal: J Neuroinflammation Date: 2017-05-30 Impact factor: 8.322
Authors: Sae-Yeon Won; Andrea Zagorcic; Daniel Dubinski; Johanna Quick-Weller; Eva Herrmann; Volker Seifert; Juergen Konczalla Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-06-26 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Thijs Vande Vyvere; Guido Wilms; Lene Claes; Francisco Martin Leon; Daan Nieboer; Jan Verheyden; Luc van den Hauwe; Pim Pullens; Andrew I R Maas; Paul M Parizel Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2018-12-11 Impact factor: 5.269