World neurosurgery · 2017
Suboccipital Decompressive Craniectomy for Cerebellar Infarction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание 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.
Ayling Oliver G S, Alotaibi Naif M, Wang Justin Z, Fatehi Mostafa, Ibrahim George M, Benavente Oscar, Field Thalia S, Gooderham Peter A, Macdonald R Loch
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Suboccipital decompressive craniectomy (SDC) for cerebellar infarction has been traditionally performed with minimal high-quality evidence. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to investigate the impact of SDC on functional outcomes, mortality, and adverse events in patients with cerebellar infarcts.
METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Our primary outcome was the proportion of patients with moderate-severe disability after SDC. Secondary outcomes included mortality and adverse events. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to examine the roles of age, preoperative neurologic status, external ventricular drain insertion, and debridement of infarcted tissue on SDC outcomes.
RESULTS: Eleven studies (with 283 patients) met our inclusion criteria. The pooled event rate for moderate-severe disability was 28% (95% confidence interval [CI], 20%-37%) and for mortality, it was 20% (95% CI, 12%-31%). The estimated overall rate of adverse events for SDC was 23% (95% CI, 14%-35%). Sensitivity analysis found less mortality with mean age <60 years, higher rates of concomitant external ventricular drain insertion, and debridement of infarcted tissue. Several factors were identified for heterogeneity between studies, including follow-up time, outcomes scale, extent of infarction, and other neuroimaging features.
CONCLUSIONS: The best available evidence for SDC is based on retrospective observational studies. SDC for cerebellar infarction is associated with better outcomes compared with decompressive surgery for hemispheric infarctions. Lack of standardized reporting methods for SDC is a considerable drawback to the development of a better understanding of the impact of this surgery on patient outcomes.
METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Our primary outcome was the proportion of patients with moderate-severe disability after SDC. Secondary outcomes included mortality and adverse events. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to examine the roles of age, preoperative neurologic status, external ventricular drain insertion, and debridement of infarcted tissue on SDC outcomes.
RESULTS: Eleven studies (with 283 patients) met our inclusion criteria. The pooled event rate for moderate-severe disability was 28% (95% confidence interval [CI], 20%-37%) and for mortality, it was 20% (95% CI, 12%-31%). The estimated overall rate of adverse events for SDC was 23% (95% CI, 14%-35%). Sensitivity analysis found less mortality with mean age <60 years, higher rates of concomitant external ventricular drain insertion, and debridement of infarcted tissue. Several factors were identified for heterogeneity between studies, including follow-up time, outcomes scale, extent of infarction, and other neuroimaging features.
CONCLUSIONS: The best available evidence for SDC is based on retrospective observational studies. SDC for cerebellar infarction is associated with better outcomes compared with decompressive surgery for hemispheric infarctions. Lack of standardized reporting methods for SDC is a considerable drawback to the development of a better understanding of the impact of this surgery on patient outcomes.