Exclusion treatment of ruptured and unruptured low-grade brain arteriovenous malformations: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: To assess the obliteration rate, functional outcome, hemorrhagic complication, and mortality rates of exclusion treatment of low-grade brain arteriovenous malformations (BAVMs) (Spetzler and Martin grades (SMGs) 1 and 2), either ruptured or unruptured. METHODS: Electronic databases-Ovid MEDLINE and PubMed-were searched for studies in which there was evidence of exclusion treatment of low-grade BAVMs treated either by endovascular, surgical, radiosurgical, or multimodality treatment. The primary outcome of interest was angiographic obliteration post-treatment and at follow-up. The secondary outcomes of interest were functional outcome (mRS), mortality rate, and hemorrhagic complication. Descriptive statistics were used to calculate rates and means. RESULTS: Eleven studies involving 1809 patients with low-grade BAVMs were included. Among these, 1790 patients treated by either endovascular, surgical, radiosurgical, or multimodality treatment were included in this analysis. Seventy-two percent of BAVMs were Spetzler-Martin grade II. The overall (i.e., including all exclusion treatment modalities) complete obliteration rate ranged from 36.5 to 100%. The overall symptomatic hemorrhagic complication rate ranged from 0 to 7.3%; procedure-related mortality ranged from 0 to 4.7%. CONCLUSION: Our systematic review of the literature reveals a high overall obliteration rate for low-grade BAVMs, either ruptured or unruptured, with low mortality rate and an acceptable post-treatment hemorrhagic complication rate. These results suggest that exclusion treatment of low-grade BAVMs may be safe and effective, regardless of the treatment modality chosen.

Safety and Effectiveness of First-line Endovascular Management of Low-Grade Brain Arteriovenous Malformations : Single Center Experience in 145 Patients.

PURPOSE: Spetzler-Martin grade (SMG) I-II (low-grade) brain arteriovenous malformations (BAVMs) are often considered safe for microsurgical resection; however, the role of endovascular treatment (EVT) remains to be clarified in this indication, especially for unruptured BAVMs. The purpose of our study was to assess the safety and effectiveness of endovascular treatment as the first-line treatment for low-grade BAVMs. METHODS: From our local database, we retrospectively retrieved patients with low-grade BAVMs, either ruptured or unruptured, treated by embolization as first-line treatment in our department between January 2005 and January 2020. The primary endpoint was the total obliteration rate of BAVMs, and secondary endpoints were hemorrhagic complications and final clinical outcome, assessed through shift of the modified Rankin scale, and mortality rate secondary to BAVM embolization. RESULTS: A total of 145 patients meeting inclusion criteria and treated by EVT as first-line therapy were included in the study (82 ruptured and 63 unruptured BAVMs). Overall, complete exclusion of BAVMs was achieved in 110 patients (75.9%); 58 patients (70.7%) with ruptured and 52 (82.5%) unruptured BAVMs, including 37.9% BAVMs excluded by EVT alone (35.5% among ruptured and 44.4% among unruptured BAVMs) and 38% by combined treatment (EVT and surgery or EVT and SRS). There was no BAVM volume cut-off predictive for total obliteration by embolization alone. Early minor hemorrhagic complications were reported in 14 patients (9.6%) and early major hemorrhagic complications were reported in 5 patients (3.4%). No late hemorrhagic complications (0%) occurred; mortality rate was 0.7% (1/145 patients). Improved/unchanged mRS was reported in 137 patients (94.5%). CONCLUSION: Endovascular treatment alone or associated with others exclusion techniques, might be safe and effective for complete exclusion of low-grade brain arteriovenous malformations regardless of the volume.

Two- versus Three-Point Internal Fixation of Displaced Zygomaticomaxillary Complex Fractures.

Despite the high frequency of the zygomaticomaxillary complex (ZMC) fractures, there is no consensus among facial reconstructive surgeons regarding the best surgical management; thus, surgical choice for ZMC fractures is still challenging. This study included 40 patients with displaced ZMC fracture. Twenty patients were treated with open reduction and internal fixation (OR/IF) using two-point fixation technique (at infraorbital margin and zygomaticofrontal buttress region) and the remaining 20 patients were treated with OR/IF using three-point fixation technique (at frontozygomatic suture, infraorbital margin, and zygomatico maxillary buttress). The results of both types of ZMC fractures repair were then statistically compared. No statistical differences between the two types regarding malar eminence asymmetry; projection (forward displacement) and width (medial displacement) in axial CT; inferior displacement; superior displacement and width (medial displacement) in coronal CT; angle of displacement (outward displacement) in 3D CT; masseter and temporalis muscles power electromyography; actual duration of surgery; and patient satisfaction. On the other hand, the total cost of the used plates and screws was significantly higher with three-point repair than two-point repair ( p = 0.003). Moreover, postoperative CT lateral zygoma displacement was statistically significantly better in three-point fixation. Two-point fixation modality for displaced ZMC fractures is as effective as three-point method in fixation and prevents postreduction rotation or clinical displacement with significantly lower cost.