STA-MCA Double-Barrel Bypass: A Systematic Review of Technique and Single-Arm Meta-Analysis of Outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Conventionally, one branch of the superficial temporal artery (STA) is utilized to revascularize the middle cerebral artery (MCA). However, there is the possibility of utilizing both branches of the STA when performing the bypass, characterizing the double-barrel (DB) STA-MCA bypass. Notably, a lack of studies evaluating this technique led the authors to conduct a systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis. METHODS: PubMed, Embase and Web of Science were searched systematically for publications of DB-STA-MCA bypass on November 1st, 2023. The findings were reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Case reports were not included for statistical analysis purposes. RESULTS: The review included 408 patients and 534 bypasses from 34 studies. The main etiology was Moyamoya disease (64.6%), followed by cerebral ischemia (22.2%) and aneurysms (12.5%). The median of the mean follow-ups of each study was 12.8 months (range 1.5-87.9). The postoperative patency was 100%. The follow-up patency was 98% (95% CI: 96%-100%; I2 = 0%). The procedure-related mortality was 0% (95% CI: 0%-1%; I2 = 0%). Aneurysms obtained 87% (95% CI: 72%-100%; I2 = 4%) of good clinical outcomes, while Moyamoya disease yielded a rate of 70% (95% CI: 10%-100%; I2 = 97%). Ischemic complications occurred at a rate of 6% (95% CI: 2%-11%; I2 = 36%), while hemorrhagic occurred at 6% (95% CI: 1%-11%; I2 = 56%). Hyperperfusion syndrome rate was calculated as 18% (7%-30%; I2 = 55%) for Moyamoya disease. CONCLUSIONS: The procedure appears to be safe, with excellent patency rates. The clinical efficacy for ischemic and Moyamoya diseases warrants further standardized robust investigation with a broader number of patients, and aneurysm studies are required to enhance sample sizes. The main complication for the Moyamoya subgroup is hyperperfusion syndrome.

Are ventriculopleural shunts the second option for treating hydrocephalus? A meta-analysis of 543 patients.

BACKGROUND: Some centers utilize ventriculopleural shunt (VPLS) for treating hydrocephalus when conventional approaches are not feasible. Nonetheless, the literature regarding this approach is scarce. PURPOSE: Evaluate the outcomes of VPLS through a single-arm meta-analysis. METHODS: Following PRISMA guidelines, the authors systematically searched for articles utilizing the VPLS in a cohort with more than four patients. Outcomes included: mortality, pleural effusion, number of patients who underwent revisions, obstructions, shunt migration, emphysema, and subdural hematoma. RESULTS: A total of 404 articles were reviewed, resulting in the inclusion of 13 retrospective studies encompassing 543 patients, with the majority being children (62.6 %). The median average follow-up period was 35.4 months (10-64.1). After analysis, results yielded a revision rate of 54 % (95 % CI: 44 %-64 %; I2=73 %). The most common complication observed was pleural effusion, with a post-analysis incidence of 16 % (95 % CI: 11 %-21 %; I2=63 %), followed by infections at 7 % (95 % CI: 4 %-10 %; I2=33 %). Shunt obstruction occurred in 13 % (95 % CI: 4 %-21 %; I2=84 %) of cases after analysis, while migrations, overdrainage, subdural hematoma, and cutaneous emphysema had minimal occurrence rates (0 %, 95 % CI: 0 %-1 %; I2=0 %). Notably, there were no reported cases of shunt-related mortality. CONCLUSION: VPLS can be considered when there are no other suitable options for placing the distal catheter. However, the notable rates of shunt revisions, pleural effusion, infections, and the inherent heterogeneity of outcomes currently limit the widespread adoption of VPLS. In this scenario, other alternatives should be given priority.

Clinical and Technical Outcomes of Intracranial-Intracranial Bypass for Treating Complex Intracranial Aneurysms: An Analysis of 255 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Despite the recent increase in publications centered on intracranial-intracranial (IC-IC) bypasses for complex aneurysms, there is no systematic evidence regarding their outcomes. The purpose was to assess the outcomes of patients subjected to IC-IC bypass for aneurysms. METHODS: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis, a systematic review was conducted. Criteria for inclusion entailed studies with a cohort of at least 4 patients having undergone IC-IC bypass for aneurysms, detailing at least one outcome, such as patency, clinical outcomes, complications, and procedure-related mortality. When the study included patients who had undergone extracranial-intracranial (EC-IC) bypass, the authors extracted the patency and clinical data to juxtapose them with the results of IC-IC. RESULTS: Of the 2509 shortlisted studies, 22 met our inclusion criteria, encompassing 255 patients and 263 IC-IC bypass procedures. The IC-IC bypass procedure exhibited a patency rate of 93% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 89%-95%). The patency rate of IC-IC and EC-IC bypasses did not significantly differ (odds ratio=0.60 [95% CI: 0.18-1.96]). Concerning clinical outcomes, 91% of the IC-IC patients had positive results (95% CI: 85%-97%), with no significant disparity between the IC-IC and EC-IC groups (odds ratio=1.29 [95% CI: 0.43-3.88]). After analysis, the complication rate was 11% (95% CI: 5%-18%). Procedure-related mortality was 1% (95% CI: 0%-4%). CONCLUSIONS: IC-IC bypass is valuable for the treatment of complex intracranial aneurysms, boasting high patency and positive clinical outcomes. Complications are unusual, and procedure-related mortality is minimal. Comparing IC-IC and EC-IC led to no significant differences.

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.

Maxillary artery utilization in subcranial-intracranial bypass procedures: a comprehensive systematic review and pooled analysis.

The utilization of the internal maxillary artery (IMAX) in subcranial-intracranial bypass for revascularization in complex aneurysms, tumors, or refractory ischemia shows promise. However, robust evidence concerning its outcomes is lacking. Hence, the authors embarked on a systematic review with pooled analysis to elucidate the efficacy of this approach. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases following PRISMA guidelines. Included articles used the IMAX as a donor vessel for revascularizing an intracranial area and reported at least one of the following outcomes: patency, complications, or clinical data. Favorable outcomes were defined as the absence of neurologic deficits or improvement in the baseline condition. Complications were considered any adverse event directly related to the procedure. Out of 418 retrieved articles, 26 were included, involving 183 patients. Among them, 119 had aneurysms, 41 experienced ischemic strokes (transient or not), 2 had arterial occlusions, and 3 had neoplasia. Furthermore, 91.8% of bypasses used radial artery grafts, and 87.9% revascularized the middle cerebral artery territory. The median average follow-up period was 12 months (0.3-53.1). The post-operation patency rate was 99% (95% CI: 97-100%; I2=0%), while the patency rate at follow-up was 82% (95% CI: 68-96%; I2=77%). Complications occurred in 21% of cases (95% CI: 9-32%; I2=58%), with no significant procedure-related mortality in 0% (95% CI: 0-2%; I2=0%). Favorable outcomes were observed in 88% of patients (95% CI: 81-96%; I2=0%), and only 3% experienced ischemia (95% CI: 0-6%; I2=0%). The subcranial-intracranial bypass with the IMAX shows excellent postoperative patency and considerable favorable clinical outcomes. While complications exist, the procedure carries a minimal risk of mortality. However, long-term patency presents heterogeneous findings, warranting additional research.

Ventriculoatrial Shunt Versus Ventriculoperitoneal Shunt: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Ventriculoperitoneal shunt (VPS) is usually the primary choice for cerebrospinal fluid shunting for most neurosurgeons, while ventriculoatrial shunt (VAS) is a second-line procedure because of historical complications. Remarkably, there is no robust evidence claiming the superiority of VPS over VAS. Thus, we aimed to compare both procedures through a meta-analysis. METHODS: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines, the authors systematically searched the literature for articles comparing VAS with VPS. The included articles had to detail one of the following outcomes: revisions, infections, shunt-related mortality, or complications. In addition, the cohort for each shunt model had to encompass more than 4 patients. RESULTS: Of 1872 articles, 16 met our criteria, involving 4304 patients, with 1619 undergoing VAS and 2685 receiving VPS placement. Analysis of revision surgeries showed no significant difference between VAS and VPS (risk ratio [RR] = 1.10, 95% CI: 0.9-1.34; I2 = 84%, random effects). Regarding infections, the analysis also found no significant difference between the groups (RR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.36-1.25; I2 = 74%, random effects). There was no statistically significant disparity between both methods concerning shunt-related deaths (RR = 2.11, 95% CI: 0.68-6.60; I2 = 56%, random effects). Included studies after 2000 showed no VAS led to cardiopulmonary complications, and only 1 shunt-related death could be identified. CONCLUSION: Both methods show no significant differences in procedure revisions, infections, and shunt-related mortality. The literature is outdated, research in adults is lacking, and future randomized studies are crucial to understand the profile of VAS when comparing it with VPS. The final decision on which distal site for cerebrospinal shunting to use should be based on the patient's characteristics and the surgeon's expertise.

Non-invasive intracranial pressure monitoring in idiopathic intracranial hypertension and lumbar puncture in pediatric patient: Case report.

BACKGROUND: Intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring has been variously explored as a diagnostic and therapeutic modality in many pathological conditions leading neurological injury. This monitoring standardly depends on an invasive procedure such as cranial or lumbar catheterization. The gold standard for ICP monitoring is through an intraventricular catheter, but this invasive technique is associated with certain risks such as haemorrhage and infection. (1) Also, it is a high-cost procedure and consequently not available in a variety of underprivileged places and clinical situations in which intracranial hypertension is prevalent (3). An accurate non-invasive and low-priced method to measure elevated ICP would therefore be desirable. Under these circumstances, Brazilian scientists developed a non-invasive method for intracranial pressure monitoring (ICP-NI), which uses an electric resistance extensometer that measures micro deformations of the skull and transforms it into an electrical signal. In this case report, the authors describe a pediatrician patient with the diagnosis of idiopathic intracranial hypertension who was successfully submitted to a lumbar puncture under monitorization with this device. CASE DESCRIPTION: 7 year old girl with progressive symptoms that lead to the diagnosis of idiopathic intracranial hypertension. The patient was submitted to a lumbar punction with continuous non-invasive ICP monitoring. CONCLUSION: Estimating ICP (non-invasive) from LP monitoring (invasive) often reflect inaccurate ICP results, and affects negatively on IIH diagnosis and a non-invasive diagnostic method could reduce the requirement for invasive approaches, improving patient health outcomes.