Rosenwasser, Robert H.

Stereotactic radiosurgery was associated with a higher obliteration rate compared with embolization in patients with eloquent brain arteriovenous malformations, whereas there was no evidence of a difference in functional outcomes or complications after adjustment.

Background and objectives Arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) with perinidal aneurysms and single draining vein are associated with an elevated risk of rupture and increased procedural complexity. The role of preoperative embolization in this high-risk anatomical subset remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of microsurgery with preoperative embolization, compared with microsurgery alone in patients with such AVMs. Methods We conducted a multicenter retrospective analysis of an AVM registry from the MISTA (Multicenter International Study for Treatment of Brain AVMs) consortium and included AVMs with perinidal aneurysms and a single draining vein. Baseline characteristics, angiographic outcomes, functional outcomes, and complication rates were compared. Propensity score weighting (PSW) using the covariate balancing method was applied to adjust for baseline differences. Results Out of a total of 1919 patients, 65 met the inclusion criteria; 45 patients underwent preoperative embolization followed by microsurgery, and 20 underwent microsurgery alone. After adjustment, complete obliteration rates were similar between groups (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.04 to 16.33, P=0.92), as were rates of functional independence at discharge and follow-up. Overall complication, symptomatic complication, and mortality rates did not differ significantly between groups. However, permanent complications were significantly lower in patients with preoperative embolization (OR 0.06, 95% CI 0.004 to 0.84, P=0.03). Discussion In patients with AVMs featuring perinidal aneurysms and single draining vein, preoperative embolization followed by microsurgery was associated with fewer permanent complications and no increase in adverse outcomes compared with microsurgery alone. However, given the small number of events, this finding should be interpreted cautiously.

Abstract Introduction The impact of multiple feeding arteries on clinical outcomes of cerebral arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) is not well understood. This study aims to compare outcomes between AVMs with multiple versus single feeding arteries. Patients and Methods Data from the Multicenter International Study for Treatment of Brain AVMs (MISTA) consortium were analyzed. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance cohorts. Subgroup analysis was conducted for ruptured and unruptured AVMs and different treatment options, and multivariable logistic regression was applied to assess the impact of feeding artery origin. Results Among 953 patients, 661(69.4%) had multiple feeding arteries, and 292 (30.6%) had a single feeding artery. After PSM, which included 422 matched patients (211 in each group), the differences in obliteration rates (68.7% vs 74.8%, OR 0.73, 95% CI: 0.48–1.12, p = 0.16) and symptomatic complications (15.6% vs 11.8%, OR 1.37, 95% CI: 0.78–2.41, p = 0.25) were not significant. Subgroup analysis comparing ruptured and unruptured AVMs and different treatment options showed no significant differences across all subgroups. Multivariable analysis identified PICA feeders as significantly associated with increased odds of all complications (OR 7.33, 95% CI: 2.14–25.1, p = 0.002). Discussion and Conclusion AVMs with a single feeding artery were more likely to present with rupture, but no significant differences in obliteration rates or complications were observed between the groups after PSM. These findings suggest that while the number of feeding arteries may influence the initial presentation, it does not appear to impact overall treatment success or patient prognosis. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Background: Arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) are complex vascular anomalies with a high risk of hemorrhage and neurological deficits, especially when located in eloquent brain regions. The eloquence of an AVM location is a critical factor in the treatment planning, influencing both the risk of complications and long-term functional outcomes. This study aims to compare outcomes between eloquent and non-eloquent AVMs. Methods: This multicenter, retrospective study utilized data from the Multicenter International Study for Treatment of Brain AVMs (MISTA) consortium. Patients with eloquent and non-eloquent AVMs were compared on baseline characteristics, angiographic outcomes, and functional outcomes using the modified Rankin Scale (mRS). Propensity score weighting (IPTW) was applied to adjust for confounding variables. Results: The study included 1013 patients, with 498 (49.2%) AVMs located in eloquent regions and 515 (50.8%) in non-eloquent regions. In unadjusted analysis, eloquent AVMs had lower complete obliteration rates (67.6% vs 79.5%, OR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.39–0.72, p < 0.001) and higher complication rates (24.5% vs 19.0%, OR: 1.38, 95% CI: 1.02–1.86, p = 0.03) compared to non-eloquent AVMs. After IPTW adjustment, eloquent AVMs continued to show significantly higher odds of overall complications (OR: 1.68, 95% CI: 1.12–2.52, p = 0.01) and symptomatic complications (OR: 1.77, 95% CI: 1.12–2.80, p = 0.01). Secondary analysis within the eloquent group indicated that embolization was linked to an elevated risk of complications. Surgery and radiosurgery showed comparable functional outcomes at last follow-up and complications rates with higher complete obliteration rates in surgery. Conclusion: AVMs in eloquent brain areas present higher risks of complications and lower obliteration rates, emphasizing the need for cautious, individualized treatment planning. Within the eloquent group, embolization increased the risk of complications, while surgery and radiosurgery showed comparable functional outcomes at last follow-up and complication rates with higher complete obliteration rates in surgery. These findings highlight the importance of location in AVM management and support further research focusing on comparing treatment strategies for AVMs in eloquent brain areas.

OBJECTIVE Preclinical studies suggest that robotic carotid artery stenting (CAS) could be superior to manual CAS. However, very limited comparative data exist for patients who have undergone robotic versus manual CAS. In addition, no data exist comparing the costs of manual and robotic CAS. METHODS All robotic CAS cases at two academic neurosurgery centers were retrospectively reviewed and 1:1 propensity matched with manual CAS cases. Personnel costs, supply costs, and total procedure costs were collected in collaboration with hospital administration by using time-driven activity-based cost analysis. RESULTS A total of 24 robotic CAS operations were performed between 2019 and 2023. Comorbidities and baseline procedural characteristics were well matched between robotic and manual cases. Unplanned manual conversion was observed in only 1 robotic case (4.2%). Robotic CAS complications and outcomes were comparable to manual. Robotic CAS was associated with a significantly increased fluoroscopy time (29.0 vs 19.2 minutes; p < 0.001). Robotic procedure time (88.9 ± 18.2 minutes) was significantly (p = 0.003) longer than manual time (68.72 ± 22.4 minutes). Health personnel costs ($1589.71 ± $176.92 vs $1375.99 ± $233.39, p = 0.005); supply costs ($3918.25 ± $421.20 vs $2152.74 ± $1030.26, p < 0.001); and total procedure costs ($5306.11 ± $608.95 vs $3437.56 ± $1165.67, p < 0.001) were greater for robotic CAS. CONCLUSIONS In the first multicenter study and largest sample to date, the authors show that robotic CAS, with a low rate of procedural failure and postoperative complications, is safe and feasible. In addition, robotic CAS achieves comparable clinical outcomes to manual CAS. Robotic CAS was associated with increased fluoroscopy time, but fluoroscopy time decreased as operators gained familiarity with the CorPath GRX system. Robotic CAS was associated with a greater procedural cost, which was driven by greater personnel and supply costs. Robotic CAS failed to show superiority to manual CAS. These findings set a foundation for randomized controlled trials of robotic CAS, and also highlight the need for further studies to optimize robotic CAS and reduce its associated costs.

Background Arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) are uncommon cerebral lesions that can cause significant neurological complications. Surgical resection is the gold standard for treatment, but endovascular embolization and stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) are viable alternatives. Objective To compare the outcomes of endovascular embolization versus SRS in the treatment of AVMs with Spetzler-Martin grades I–III. Methods This study combined retrospective data from 10 academic institutions in North America and Europe. Patients aged 1 to 90 years who underwent endovascular embolization or SRS for AVMs with Spetzler-Martin grades I–III between January 2010 and December 2023 were included. Results The study included 244 patients, including 84 who had endovascular embolization and 160 who had SRS. Before propensity score matching (PSM), complete obliteration at the last follow-up was achieved in 74.5% of the SRS group compared with 57.8% of the embolization group (OR=0.47; 95% CI 0.26 to 0.48; P=0.01). After propensity score matching, SRS still achieved significantly higher occlusion rates at last follow-up (78.9% vs 55.3%; OR=0.32; 95% CI 0.12 to 0.90; P=0.03). Hemorrhagic complications were higher in the embolization group than in the SRS group, although this difference did not reach statistical significance after PSM (13.2% vs 2.6%; OR=5.6; 95% CI 0.62 to 50.47; P=0.12). Similarly, re-treatment rate was higher in the embolization group (10.5% vs 5.3%; OR=2.11; 95% CI 0.36 to 12.31; P=0.40) compared with the SRS group. Conclusion Our findings indicate that SRS has a significantly higher obliteration rate at last follow-up compared with endovascular embolization. Also, SRS has a higher tendency for fewer hemorrhagic complications and lower re-treatment rate. Further prospective studies are needed.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is a well-established treatment option for carotid stenosis. The choice between general anesthesia (GA) and nongeneral anesthesia (non-GA) during CEA remains a subject of debate, with concerns regarding perioperative complications, particularly myocardial infarctions. This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes associated with GA vs non-GA CEA using a large, nationwide database. METHODS: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Project database was queried for patients undergoing CEA between 2013 and 2020. Primary outcome measures including surgical outcomes and 30-day postoperative complications were compared between the 2 anesthesia methods, after 2:1 propensity score matching. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, a total of 25 356 patients (16 904 in the GA and 8452 in the non-GA group) were included. Non-GA compared with GA CEA was associated with significantly shorter operative times (101.9, 95% CI: 100.5-103.3 vs 115.8 95% CI: 114.4-117.2 minutes, P < .001), reduced length of hospital stays (2.3, 95% CI: 2.15-2.4 vs 2.5, 95% CI: 2.4-2.6 days, P < .001), and lower rates of 30-day postoperative complications, including myocardial infarctions (0.8% vs 1.2%, P = .003), unplanned intubations (0.8% vs 1.1%, P = .016), pneumonia (0.5% vs 1%, P < .001), and urinary tract infections (0.4% vs 0.7%, P = .003). These outcomes were notably more pronounced in the younger (≤70 years) and high morbidity (American Society of Anesthesiologists 3-5) cohorts. CONCLUSION: In this nationwide registry-based study, non-GA CEA was associated with better short-term outcomes in terms of perioperative complications, compared with GA CEA. The findings suggest that non-GA CEA may be a safer alternative, especially in younger patients and those with more comorbidities.