Journal of neurointerventional surgery · 2013
Percutaneous trigeminal rhizotomy in a biplane angiosuite: technical assessment.
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.
Rose Katherine R, Stone Jonathan J, Ren Zeguang, Wang Henry, Jahromi Babak S
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Percutaneous trigeminal rhizotomy (PTR) uses fluoroscopic guidance to cannulate the foramen ovale for the treatment of trigeminal neuralgia.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the use of a high-resolution biplane neuroangiosuite for PTR and retrospectively to assess the performance of this technique.
METHODS: From 1990 through 2010, 67 PTRs were performed in 51 patients at our institution; 47 used the c-arm in the operating room (OR) and 20 used the biplane angiosuite. Hospital charts were reviewed for demographics, symptomatology, operative time, number of cannulation attempts, fluoroscopy time and pain outcome. Two-tailed univariate analyses were performed to compare the OR and angiosuite groups.
RESULTS: In 20 of 67 PTRs, biplane fluoroscopic guidance in the angiosuite was used. Variations in type of PTR, fluoroscopy technique and follow-up time barred meaningful comparison of these variables between OR and biplane groups. However, the biplane group had significantly fewer mean cannulation attempts (1 vs 2.2, p<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: High-resolution biplane neuroangiosuites offer a readily available alternative to ORs for PTR in the treatment of trigeminal neuralgia. Use of the biplane fluoroscopy machine was practical, safe and at least as effective as the use of the c-arm. It may also offer the advantages of a reduced number of cannulation attempts.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the use of a high-resolution biplane neuroangiosuite for PTR and retrospectively to assess the performance of this technique.
METHODS: From 1990 through 2010, 67 PTRs were performed in 51 patients at our institution; 47 used the c-arm in the operating room (OR) and 20 used the biplane angiosuite. Hospital charts were reviewed for demographics, symptomatology, operative time, number of cannulation attempts, fluoroscopy time and pain outcome. Two-tailed univariate analyses were performed to compare the OR and angiosuite groups.
RESULTS: In 20 of 67 PTRs, biplane fluoroscopic guidance in the angiosuite was used. Variations in type of PTR, fluoroscopy technique and follow-up time barred meaningful comparison of these variables between OR and biplane groups. However, the biplane group had significantly fewer mean cannulation attempts (1 vs 2.2, p<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: High-resolution biplane neuroangiosuites offer a readily available alternative to ORs for PTR in the treatment of trigeminal neuralgia. Use of the biplane fluoroscopy machine was practical, safe and at least as effective as the use of the c-arm. It may also offer the advantages of a reduced number of cannulation attempts.