Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Systematic review assesses postoperative stroke outcomes for single-barrel and double-barrel bypass in moyamoya disease, suggesting no significant differences.
Background Moyamoya disease (MMD) involves progressive stenosis of intracranial arteries and compensatory collateral vessel formation. A novel modification of the single-barrel STA-MCA bypass, the double-barrel bypass, offers increased postoperative flow or draw, although longer in operative time. Currently, there is a lack of consensus regarding the impact of the novel double-barrel bypass STA-MCA bypass on the incidence of postoperative stroke for patients undergoing direct extracranial-intracranial bypass for MMD. Methods We performed a PRISMA-compliant systematic review of MEDLINE and Embase from inception through March 2024. A supplemental bibliographic review in Google Scholar was also performed to screen for additional candidate citations. Among 95 candidate citations, 16 underwent full-text review; 5 met study criteria and were included in a meta-analysis of proportions using random-effects modeling. Results There was no significant difference in postoperative stroke following single-barrel compared to double-barrel bypass (OR=1.28, 95%CI=0.26-6.3, p=0.77). Studies reported either median or mean follow-up times, with an approximate mean of 20.2 months (range, 7-190). Inter-study heterogeneity was minimal (I²=0%). Sensitivity analyses excluding studies with follow-up times under 12 months (OR=1.12, 95%CI=0.18-8.39, p=0.85) and studies using STA-MCA bypass with adjunct indirect procedures (OR=0.65, 95%CI=0.08-5.09, p=0.68) validated primary findings. Funnel plots and Egger's test were negative for publication bias. Conclusion Double-barrel STA-MCA bypass does not appear to provide additional postoperative stroke protection or vulnerability compared to the single-barrel; however, given the relatively limited follow-up times, these results may under-represent long-term benefits. Well-controlled long-term studies are needed to better interrogate the optimal treatment strategies for this vulnerable patient population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cho et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: