1Department of Neurosurgery, Oklahoma University Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
2St. Vincent Neuroscience Institute, Indianapolis, Indiana.
J Neurosurg. 2017 Dec;127(6):1342-1352. doi: 10.3171/2016.8.JNS16703. Epub 2017 Jan 13.
OBJECTIVE The deep and difficult-to-reach location of basilar apex aneurysms, along with their location near critical adjacent perforating arteries, has rendered the perception that microsurgical treatment of these aneurysms is risky. As a result, these aneurysms are considered more suitable for treatment by endovascular intervention. The authors attempt to compare the immediate and long-term outcomes of microsurgery versus endovascular therapy for this aneurysm subtype. METHODS A prospectively maintained database of 208 consecutive patients treated for basilar apex aneurysms between 2000 and 2012 was reviewed. In this group, 161 patients underwent endovascular treatment and 47 were managed microsurgically. The corresponding records were analyzed for presenting characteristics, postoperative complications, discharge status, and Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) scores up to 1 year after treatment and compared using chi-square and Student t-tests. RESULTS Among these 208 aneurysms, 116 (56%) were ruptured, including 92 (57%) and 24 (51%) of the endovascularly and microsurgically managed aneurysms, respectively. The average Hunt and Hess grade was 2.4 (2.4 in the endovascular group and 2.2 in the microsurgical group; p = 0.472). Postoperative complications of cranial nerve deficits and hemiparesis were more common in patients treated microsurgically than endovascularly (55.3% vs 16.2%, p < 0.05; and 27.7% vs 10.6%, p < 0.05, respectively). However, aneurysm remnants and need for retreatment were more common in the endovascular than the microsurgical group (41.3% vs 2.3%, p < 0.05; and 10.6% vs 0.0%, p < 0.05, respectively). Stent placement significantly reduced the need for retreatment. Rehemorrhage rates and average GOS score at discharge and 1 year after treatment were not statistically different between the two treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS Patients with basilar apex aneurysms were significantly more likely to be treated via endovascular management, but compared with those treated microsurgically, they had higher rates of recurrence and need for retreatment. The current study did not detect an overall difference in outcomes at discharge and 1 year after either treatment modality. Therefore, in a select group of patients, microsurgical treatment continues to play an important role.
基底动脉尖动脉瘤位置深且难以到达,且毗邻重要的穿通动脉,因此人们普遍认为显微手术治疗此类动脉瘤风险较高。因此,这些动脉瘤更适合采用血管内介入治疗。作者尝试比较显微手术与血管内治疗治疗该动脉瘤亚型的即刻和长期疗效。
回顾 2000 年至 2012 年间连续收治的 208 例基底动脉尖动脉瘤患者的前瞻性数据库。其中 161 例患者接受血管内治疗,47 例患者接受显微手术治疗。分析比较两组患者的临床表现、术后并发症、出院情况及治疗后 1 年的格拉斯哥预后量表(GOS)评分,采用卡方检验和 t 检验。
在这 208 个动脉瘤中,116 个(56%)为破裂性动脉瘤,其中血管内治疗组 92 个(57%),显微手术治疗组 24 个(51%)。平均 Hunt 和 Hess 分级为 2.4 级(血管内组为 2.4 级,显微手术组为 2.2 级;p = 0.472)。与血管内治疗组相比,显微手术组患者术后颅神经损伤和偏瘫的并发症更常见(55.3% vs 16.2%,p < 0.05;27.7% vs 10.6%,p < 0.05)。然而,血管内治疗组的动脉瘤残留和需要再次治疗的比例高于显微手术组(41.3% vs 2.3%,p < 0.05;10.6% vs 0.0%,p < 0.05)。支架置入可显著降低再次治疗的需求。两组患者的再出血率和治疗后出院及 1 年时的平均 GOS 评分无统计学差异。
基底动脉尖动脉瘤患者更倾向于接受血管内治疗,但与接受显微手术治疗的患者相比,其复发率和再次治疗的需求更高。本研究未发现两种治疗方法在出院和治疗后 1 年时的结局存在总体差异。因此,在选择的患者群体中,显微手术治疗仍然发挥着重要作用。