Enhancing the quality of evidence, comparability, and reproducibility in brain arteriovenous malformations treated with open surgery research: a systematic review and proposal of a reporting guideline for surgical and clinical outcomes.

Brain Arteriovenous Malformations (bAVMs) are rare but high-risk developmental anomalies of the vascular system. Microsurgery through craniotomy is believed to be the mainstay standard treatment for many grades of bAVMs. However, a significant challenge emerges in the existing body of clinical studies on open surgery for bAVMs: the lack of reproducibility and comparability. This study aims to assess the quality of studies reporting clinical and surgical outcomes for bAVMs treated by open surgery and develop a reporting guideline checklist focusing on essential elements to ensure comparability and reproducibility. This is a systematic literature review that followed the PRISMA guidelines with the search in Medline, Embase, and Web of Science databases, for studies published between January 1, 2018, and December 1, 2023. Included studies were scrutinized focusing on seven domains: (1) Assessment of How Studies Reported on the Baseline Characteristics of the Patient Sample; (2) Assessment and reporting on bAVMs grading, anatomical characteristics, and radiological aspects; (3) Angioarchitecture Assessment and Reporting; (4) Reporting on Pivotal Concepts Definitions; (5) Reporting on Neurosurgeon(s) and Staff Characteristics; (6) Reporting on Surgical Details; (7) Assessing and Reporting Clinical and Surgical Outcomes and AEs. A total of 47 studies comprising 5,884 patients were included. The scrutiny of the studies identified that the current literature in bAVM open surgery is deficient in many aspects, ranging from fundamental pieces of information of methodology to baseline characteristics of included patients and data reporting. Included studies demonstrated a lack of reproducibility that hinders building cumulative evidence. A bAVM Open Surgery Reporting Guideline with 65 items distributed across eight domains was developed and is proposed in this study aiming to address these shortcomings. This systematic review identified that the available literature regarding microsurgery for bAVM treatment, particularly in studies reporting clinical and surgical outcomes, lacks rigorous scientific methodology and quality in reporting. The proposed bAVM Open Surgery Reporting Guideline covers all essential aspects and is a potential solution to address these shortcomings and increase transparency, comparability, and reproducibility in this scenario. This proposal aims to advance the level of evidence and enhance knowledge regarding the Open Surgery treatment for bAVMs.

Posterior Inferior Cerebellar Artery-Posterior Inferior Cerebellar Artery Bypass versus Occipital Artery-Posterior Inferior Cerebellar Artery Bypass for Treating Posterior Circulation Aneurysms: A Systematic Review and Comparative Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: 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. The objective was to compare the safety and efficacy of OA-PICA and PICA-PICA bypasses. METHODS: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis 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. RESULTS: 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% confidence interval [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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.