• World Neurosurg · Aug 2016

    Review Meta Analysis

    Perioperative complications and long-term outcomes after bypasses in adults with moyamoya disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

    • Hai Sun, Christopher Wilson, Alp Ozpinar, Sam Safavi-Abbasi, Yan Zhao, Peter Nakaji, John E Wanebo, and Robert F Spetzler.
    • Department of Neurosurgery, Barrow Neurological Institute, St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
    • World Neurosurg. 2016 Aug 1; 92: 179-188.

    BackgroundSurgical revascularization for adults with moyamoya disease (MD) includes direct, indirect, or combination bypasses. It is unclear which provides the best outcomes. We sought to determine the best surgical management for adults with MD by comparing perioperative complications and long-term outcomes among 3 bypass types.MethodsLiterature databases were searched for articles reporting revascularization bypass outcomes for adults with MD. A pooled analysis of all qualified studies and meta-analysis using only studies reporting direct comparisons of 2 bypass types were performed. Overall odds ratios (ORs) comparing 2 bypass types were computed and publication bias was assessed. Rates of perioperative and long-term hemorrhage and ischemia and favorable outcomes were compared.ResultsForty-seven studies were analyzed; 8 had level 1 or 2 evidence. Pooled analyses showed that perioperative hemorrhage rates were significantly (P = 0.02) lower with indirect compared with direct (OR, 0.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.002-0.55) or combined (OR, 0.03; 95% CI, 0.002-0.53) bypasses. Meta-analysis showed that direct bypass was better at preventing long-term hemorrhage than was indirect bypass (OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.09-0.79; P = 0.02). Pooled analyses showed that direct is significantly better (P < 0.01) than indirect (OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.33-0.77) and combined (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.31-0.72) bypasses in preventing long-term ischemia. Meta-analysis showed that direct was better than indirect bypass in producing long-term favorable outcomes (OR, 2.62; 95% CI, 1.19-5.79; P = 0.02), and the pooled analysis showed that combined bypass was better than indirect bypass in producing long-term favorable outcomes (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.03-1.54; P = 0.02).ConclusionsOverall, our analyses suggest that direct bypass with or without indirect augmentation provides the best outcomes for adults with MD.Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.