Acta neurochirurgica · 2021
Redo surgery for trigeminal neuralgia: reasons for re-exploration and long-term outcomes.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Inoue Takuro, Shitara Satoshi, Goto Yukihiro, Prasetya Mustaqim, Radcliffe Lori, Fukushima Takanori
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: To investigate the causes of failure and recurrence after microvascular decompression (MVD) for trigeminal neuralgia (TGN) and to analyze the results of redo surgery.
METHODS: Sixty-three cases of redo surgery were retrospectively reviewed. Reasons for re-exploration were categorized into 4 groups based on the operative findings. Patient characteristics, outcomes of re-exploration, and operative complications were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier and logistic regression analyses.
RESULTS: Reasons for redo surgery were divided into arterial compression in 13 patients (21%), venous compression in 11 patients (17%), prosthesis-related in 25 patients (40%), and adhesion or negative exploration in 14 patients (22%). Immediate pain relief was obtained in 59 patients (94%) postoperatively with newly developed facial numbness in 17 patients (27%). Of these, 48 patients (76%) maintained pain-free 1 year postoperatively. Overall recurrence was noted in 17 patients (27%) during the median 49-month follow-up period. Most recurrences occurred within 1 year after redo surgery, but the prosthesis-related patients showed a continuous recurrence up to 4 years. Patients having vascular compression showed significantly better pain control than those without vascular contact in Kaplan-Meier analyses (p = 0.0421). No prognostic factor for pain-free 1 year after redo surgery was found.
CONCLUSIONS: Redo surgery is effective for patients with remaining vascular compression rather than those without vascular contact. Teflon contact onto the nerve root should be avoided because it is a potential risk for recurrence and causes poor prognosis after redo surgery.
METHODS: Sixty-three cases of redo surgery were retrospectively reviewed. Reasons for re-exploration were categorized into 4 groups based on the operative findings. Patient characteristics, outcomes of re-exploration, and operative complications were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier and logistic regression analyses.
RESULTS: Reasons for redo surgery were divided into arterial compression in 13 patients (21%), venous compression in 11 patients (17%), prosthesis-related in 25 patients (40%), and adhesion or negative exploration in 14 patients (22%). Immediate pain relief was obtained in 59 patients (94%) postoperatively with newly developed facial numbness in 17 patients (27%). Of these, 48 patients (76%) maintained pain-free 1 year postoperatively. Overall recurrence was noted in 17 patients (27%) during the median 49-month follow-up period. Most recurrences occurred within 1 year after redo surgery, but the prosthesis-related patients showed a continuous recurrence up to 4 years. Patients having vascular compression showed significantly better pain control than those without vascular contact in Kaplan-Meier analyses (p = 0.0421). No prognostic factor for pain-free 1 year after redo surgery was found.
CONCLUSIONS: Redo surgery is effective for patients with remaining vascular compression rather than those without vascular contact. Teflon contact onto the nerve root should be avoided because it is a potential risk for recurrence and causes poor prognosis after redo surgery.