Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Meta-analysis shows superior clinical outcomes with microsurgery over endovascular embolization in spinal dural arteriovenous fistula, indicating microsurgery remains the more effective treatment.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical effect of microsurgery and endovascular embolization in the treatment of spinal dural arteriovenous fistula (SDAVF) by meta-analysis. METHODS: A systematic review was performed to retrieve all relevant literature about surgical treatment or endovascular embolization of SDAVF up to December 2019 through PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials Results, CNKI, Wanfang Data, and SinoMed. The Chinese and English key words included: "SDAVF", "spinal dural arteriovenous fistula", "spinal AVM", "spinal vascular malformation and treatment". The included studies were evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The early failure rate, long-term recurrence, neurological recovery, and complications were evaluated and the clinical effects of the two methods in the treatment of SDAVF were compared by using RevMan 5.3 software. And a further subgroup analysis of the therapeutic effect of endovascular embolization with different embolic agents was conducted. CONCLUSION: Although the treatment of dural arteriovenous fistulas by intravascular embolization has been widely used, the clinical effect of microsurgery is still better than that of endovascular embolization. Large scale and high-quality randomized controlled trials are required to validate the efficacy and safety of endovascular treatment in SDAVF patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yuan et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: