Skip to main content
main-content

Tipp

Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen

01.05.2016 | original article | Ausgabe 9-10/2016

Wiener klinische Wochenschrift 9-10/2016

Endovascular versus operative treatment of cerebral aneurysms: a comparison of results from a low-volume neurosurgical centre

Zeitschrift:
Wiener klinische Wochenschrift > Ausgabe 9-10/2016
Autoren:
Gorazd Bunc, Janez Ravnik, Matjaz Vorsic, Tomaz Seruga, Marko Jevsek, Tomaz Smigoc, Tomaz Velnar

Summary

Background

Subarachnoid haemorrhage is a debilitating disease. The treatment options include surgical clipping or endovascular embolisation. Still, many controversies exist about which method is more convenient.

Methods

In the retrospective study from January 2006 to December 2013, 129 patients with subarachnoid haemorrhage were analysed. They were classified according to the WFNS grade and Fisher scale. The diagnosis of intracranial aneurysms was based on computerised tomographic angiography and digital subtraction angiography. All patients received the standard therapy against vasospasm. The treatment outcome was evaluated with Glasgow Outcome Scale.

Results

Of 129 patients, surgery was employed in 40, endovascular obliteration in 86 patients and 3 patients received both forms of treatment. Four factors were statistically significant for worse results in the univariate analysis: the age, WFNS grade, Fisher grade and the presence of clinical vasospasm. In the multivariate analysis, only the age, WFNS grade and the presence of clinical vasospasm remained statistically significant for the outcome. There was a trend towards better outcome for the patients that had endovascular treatment compared with patients who were treated surgically, although the difference was not statistically significant.

Conclusions

Although the endovascular embolisation in relation to the surgical clipping is becoming a more popular treatment method for ruptured cerebral aneurysms it cannot offer reliable endovascular exclusion in all types of aneurysms. Based on our experience, it is therefore necessary to look at these two methods as complementary that may both be used separately or in combination for the well-being of the patient.

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Literatur
Über diesen Artikel

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 9-10/2016

Wiener klinische Wochenschrift 9-10/2016 Zur Ausgabe