Terakado Toshitsugu, Ito Yoshiro, Hirata Koji, Sato Masayuki, Takigawa Tomoji, Marushima Aiki, Hayakawa Mikito, Tsuruta Wataro, Kato Noriyuki, Nakai Yasunobu, Suzuki Kensuke, Matsumaru Yuji, Ishikawa Eiichi
Department of Neurosurgery, Tsukuba Medical Center Hospital, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan.
Department of Neurosurgery, Koyama Memorial Hospital, Kashima, Ibaraki, Japan.
J Neuroendovasc Ther. 2024;18(2):29-36. doi: 10.5797/jnet.oa.2023-0069. Epub 2024 Jan 13.
Intraoperative rebleeding during endovascular treatment for ruptured intracranial aneurysms is associated with poor prognosis. Lumbar drainage is performed preoperatively to control intracranial pressure; however, it is associated with a risk of brain herniation or rebleeding because intracranial pressure may change rapidly. Therefore, this study aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of preoperative lumbar drainage.
This retrospective study enrolled 375 patients who underwent endovascular treatment of ruptured intracranial aneurysms at our institution between April 2013 and March 2018. The incidence of rebleeding and clinical outcomes were compared between patients who did and did not undergo preoperative lumbar drainage.
Among the 375 patients with ruptured intracranial aneurysms, 324 (86.0%) and 51 (14.0%) patients did and did not undergo lumbar drainage, respectively. The incidence of rebleeding was 11/324 (3.4%) and 2/51 (3.9%) in lumbar drainage and nonlumbar drainage groups, respectively, with no statistical differences (p = 0.98). Of the rebleeding cases, 9/11 (81%) and 2/2 (100%) in lumbar drainage and nonlumbar drainage groups, respectively, were due to intraoperative bleeding, and 2/11 (19%) in the lumbar drainage group, the causes of the rebleeding were undetermined. The incidence of symptomatic vasospasm did not differ significantly between the groups (13.2% vs. 11.8%, P = 0.776), while the incidence of hydrocephalus (24.6% vs. 11.8%, P = 0.043) and meningitis (15.2% vs. 5.9%, P = 0.075) were slightly higher in the lumbar drainage group. Favorable clinical outcomes (modified Rankin Scale score <2) at discharge were less frequent in the lumbar drainage group (55.3% vs. 70.0%, P = 0.051). No significant differences were observed in the propensity score-matched analysis.
Lumbar drainage before endovascular treatment for ruptured intracranial aneurysms is a safe procedure that does not increase the incidence of rebleeding.
颅内破裂动脉瘤血管内治疗术中再出血与预后不良相关。术前进行腰椎引流以控制颅内压;然而,由于颅内压可能迅速变化,其存在脑疝或再出血风险。因此,本研究旨在探讨术前腰椎引流的有效性和安全性。
本回顾性研究纳入了2013年4月至2018年3月在我院接受颅内破裂动脉瘤血管内治疗的375例患者。比较了接受和未接受术前腰椎引流患者的再出血发生率及临床结局。
在375例颅内破裂动脉瘤患者中,分别有324例(86.0%)和51例(14.0%)接受和未接受腰椎引流。腰椎引流组和非腰椎引流组的再出血发生率分别为11/324(3.4%)和2/51(3.9%),无统计学差异(p = 0.98)。在再出血病例中,腰椎引流组和非腰椎引流组分别有9/11(81%)和2/2(100%)是由于术中出血,腰椎引流组中有2/11(19%)再出血原因不明。两组间症状性血管痉挛的发生率无显著差异(13.2%对11.8%,P = 0.776),而腰椎引流组脑积水(24.6%对11.8%,P = 0.043)和脑膜炎(15.2%对5.9%,P = 0.075)的发生率略高。腰椎引流组出院时良好的临床结局(改良Rankin量表评分<2)发生率较低(55.3%对70.0%,P = 0.051)。倾向评分匹配分析未观察到显著差异。
颅内破裂动脉瘤血管内治疗术前腰椎引流是一种安全的操作,不会增加再出血发生率。