Does eloquence subtype influence outcome following arteriovenous malformation surgery?
Adolescent
Adult
Brain Mapping
Female
Humans
Intracranial Arteriovenous Malformations
/ diagnostic imaging
Language
Logistic Models
Male
Microsurgery
Middle Aged
Motor Activity
Radiography
Retrospective Studies
Risk Assessment
Severity of Illness Index
Treatment Outcome
Visual Perception
Young Adult
AVM = arteriovenous malformation
LED = lesion-to-eloquence distance
Lawton-Young grading system
MSI = magnetic source imaging
SM = Spetzler-Martin
Spetzler-Martin grading system
arteriovenous malformation
brain eloquence
fMRI = functional MRI
mRS = modified Rankin Scale
modified Rankin Scale
patient selection
risk prediction
vascular disorders
Journal
Journal of neurosurgery
ISSN: 1933-0693
Titre abrégé: J Neurosurg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0253357
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 09 2019
01 09 2019
Historique:
received:
09
02
2018
accepted:
12
04
2018
pubmed:
1
12
2018
medline:
9
11
2019
entrez:
1
12
2018
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Although numerous arteriovenous malformation (AVM) grading scales consider eloquence in risk assessment, none differentiate the types of eloquence. The purpose of this study was to determine if eloquence subtype affects clinical outcome. This is a retrospective review of a prospectively collected clinical database of brain AVMs treated with microsurgery in the period from 1997 to 2017. The only inclusion criterion for this study was the presence of eloquence as defined by the Spetzler-Martin grading scale. Eloquence was preoperatively categorized by radiologists. Poor outcome was defined as a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score 3-6, and worsening clinical status was defined as an increase in the mRS score at follow-up. Logistic regression analyses were performed. Two hundred forty-one patients (49.4% female; average age 33.9 years) with eloquent brain AVMs were included in this review. Of the AVMs (average size 2.7 cm), 54.4% presented with hemorrhage, 46.2% had deep venous drainage, and 17.0% were diffuse. The most common eloquence type was sensorimotor (46.1%), followed by visual (27.0%) and language (22.0%). Treatments included microsurgery alone (32.8%), microsurgery plus embolization (51.9%), microsurgery plus radiosurgery (7.9%), and all three modalities (7.5%). Motor mapping was used in 9% of sensorimotor AVM cases, and awake speech mapping was used in 13.2% of AVMs with language eloquence. Complications occurred in 24 patients (10%). At the last follow-up (average 24 months), 71.4% of the patients were unchanged or improved and 16.6% had a poor outcome. There was no statistically significant difference in the baseline patient and AVM characteristics among the different subtypes of eloquence. In a multivariate analysis, in comparison to visual eloquence, both sensorimotor (OR 7.4, p = 0.004) and language (OR 6.5, p = 0.015) eloquence were associated with poor outcomes. Additionally, older age (OR 1.31, p = 0.016) and larger AVM size (OR 1.37, p = 0.034) were associated with poor outcomes. Unlike visual eloquence, sensorimotor and language eloquence were associated with worse clinical outcomes after the resection of eloquent AVMs. This nuance in AVM eloquence demands consideration before deciding on microsurgical intervention, especially when numerical grading systems produce a score near the borderline between operative and nonoperative management.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30497229
doi: 10.3171/2018.4.JNS18403
pii: 2018.4.JNS18403
pmc: PMC6800816
mid: NIHMS1054738
doi:
pii:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
876-883Subventions
Organisme : NINDS NIH HHS
ID : R01 NS034949
Pays : United States
Références
Stroke. 2007 Mar;38(3):1091-6
pubmed: 17272767
J Neurosurg. 2002 Jan;96(1):79-85
pubmed: 11794608
J Neurosurg. 2006 Aug;105(2 Suppl):82-7
pubmed: 16922067
J Clin Neurosci. 2013 May;20(5):649-53
pubmed: 23473886
World Neurosurg. 2016 Sep;93:355-64
pubmed: 27345834
J Neurosurg. 2018 Feb;128(2):530-540
pubmed: 28362235
J Neurosurg. 2011 Mar;114(3):842-9
pubmed: 20932095
Neurosurgery. 2011 Mar;68(3):744-52
pubmed: 21311300
J Neurosurg. 2013 Feb;118(2):437-43
pubmed: 23198804
Neurology. 2006 May 9;66(9):1350-5
pubmed: 16682666
Neurosurgery. 2015 Jan;76(1):25-31; discussion 31-2; quiz 32-3
pubmed: 25251197
Neurosurgery. 2003 Apr;52(4):740-8; discussion 748-9
pubmed: 12657169
J Neurointerv Surg. 2016 Jul;8(7):685-91
pubmed: 26078359
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 1992;117(3-4):129-34
pubmed: 1414513
J Neurosurg. 2016 Aug;125(2):289-98
pubmed: 26636384
J Neurosurg. 2012 Jun;116(6):1279-88
pubmed: 22482792
Neurosurgery. 2005 Mar;56(3):485-93; discussion 485-93
pubmed: 15730573
Surg Neurol Int. 2015 Jan 07;6:3
pubmed: 25657856
Neurosurgery. 2007 Apr;60(4):638-46; discussion 646-8
pubmed: 17415200
P R Health Sci J. 2010 Jun;29(2):117-20
pubmed: 20496526
Neurosurgery. 2010 Apr;66(4):702-13; discussion 713
pubmed: 20190666
World Neurosurg. 2017 Sep;105:432-440
pubmed: 28583455
J Neurosurg. 2013 Oct;119(4):981-7
pubmed: 23829820
J Neurosurg. 1986 Oct;65(4):476-83
pubmed: 3760956
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011 Mar 15;79(4):1147-50
pubmed: 20605347
J Neurointerv Surg. 2014 Dec;6(10):748-53
pubmed: 24319022
Neurosurgery. 2002 Sep;51(3):614-23; discussion 623-7
pubmed: 12188939
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 1991;110(1-2):6-16
pubmed: 1882721
Neurosurgery. 2008 Aug;63(2):239-43; discussion 243
pubmed: 18797353
Neurosurgery. 2017 Sep 1;81(3):441-449
pubmed: 28327955