World neurosurgery · 2016
Treatment of Middle Cranial Fossa Arachnoid Cysts: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chen Yong, Fang Hong-Juan, Li Zhi-Feng, Yu Sheng-Yuan, Li Chu-Zhong, Wu Zhe-Bao, Zhang Ya-Zhuo
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To review the literature and analyze the efficacy and safety of 3 surgical methods (neuroendoscopic fenestration, microsurgical fenestration, and cystoperitoneal shunting) for middle cranial fossa arachnoid cysts (MCFACs).
METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, and Cochrane Central electronic databases and collected studies of patients with MCFACs treated with 1 of 3 surgical methods. Eligible studies reported the rate of clinical symptoms improvement (RCSI), rate of cyst reduction (RCR), rate of total complications (RTC), rate of short-term complications (RSTC), rate of long-term complications (RLTC), and other parameters.
RESULTS: Eighteen studies met the criteria. MCFACs were divided into 3 groups on the basis of surgical method: RCSI in group I (237 patients, neuroendoscopic fenestration) was 90% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 83%-95%); RCR: 76% (95% CI: 67%-84%); RTC: 28% (95% CI: 22%-34%); RSTC: 23% (95% CI: 17%-30%); and RLTC: 6% (95% CI: 3%-11%). RCSI in group II (144 patients, microsurgical fenestration) was 87% (95% CI: 75%-96%); RCR: 87% (95% CI: 70%-97%); RTC: 49% (95% CI: 30%-68%); RSTC: 44% (95% CI: 21%-68%); RLTC: 3% (95% CI: 0%-12%). RCSI in group III (93 patients, cystoperitoneal shunting) was 93% (95% CI: 66%-99%); RCR: 93% (95% CI: 66%-99%); RTC: 20% (95% CI: 5%-42%); RSTC: 10% (95% CI: 0%-31%); RLTC: 15% (95% CI: 9%-23%). RLTC differed significantly between the 3 groups (P = 0.005); RTC and RSTC between group I and group II (P = 0.002).
CONCLUSIONS: All 3 surgical methods are effective for MCFACs, but considering safety, neuroendoscopic fenestration may be the best initial procedure.
METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, and Cochrane Central electronic databases and collected studies of patients with MCFACs treated with 1 of 3 surgical methods. Eligible studies reported the rate of clinical symptoms improvement (RCSI), rate of cyst reduction (RCR), rate of total complications (RTC), rate of short-term complications (RSTC), rate of long-term complications (RLTC), and other parameters.
RESULTS: Eighteen studies met the criteria. MCFACs were divided into 3 groups on the basis of surgical method: RCSI in group I (237 patients, neuroendoscopic fenestration) was 90% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 83%-95%); RCR: 76% (95% CI: 67%-84%); RTC: 28% (95% CI: 22%-34%); RSTC: 23% (95% CI: 17%-30%); and RLTC: 6% (95% CI: 3%-11%). RCSI in group II (144 patients, microsurgical fenestration) was 87% (95% CI: 75%-96%); RCR: 87% (95% CI: 70%-97%); RTC: 49% (95% CI: 30%-68%); RSTC: 44% (95% CI: 21%-68%); RLTC: 3% (95% CI: 0%-12%). RCSI in group III (93 patients, cystoperitoneal shunting) was 93% (95% CI: 66%-99%); RCR: 93% (95% CI: 66%-99%); RTC: 20% (95% CI: 5%-42%); RSTC: 10% (95% CI: 0%-31%); RLTC: 15% (95% CI: 9%-23%). RLTC differed significantly between the 3 groups (P = 0.005); RTC and RSTC between group I and group II (P = 0.002).
CONCLUSIONS: All 3 surgical methods are effective for MCFACs, but considering safety, neuroendoscopic fenestration may be the best initial procedure.