RESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Ventriculoperitoneal shunt (VPS) is usually the primary choice for cerebrospinal fluid shunting for most neurosurgeons, while ventriculoatrial shunt (VAS) is a second-line procedure because of historical complications. Remarkably, there is no robust evidence claiming the superiority of VPS over VAS. Thus, we aimed to compare both procedures through a meta-analysis. METHODS: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines, the authors systematically searched the literature for articles comparing VAS with VPS. The included articles had to detail one of the following outcomes: revisions, infections, shunt-related mortality, or complications. In addition, the cohort for each shunt model had to encompass more than 4 patients. RESULTS: Of 1872 articles, 16 met our criteria, involving 4304 patients, with 1619 undergoing VAS and 2685 receiving VPS placement. Analysis of revision surgeries showed no significant difference between VAS and VPS (risk ratio [RR] = 1.10, 95% CI: 0.9-1.34; I2 = 84%, random effects). Regarding infections, the analysis also found no significant difference between the groups (RR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.36-1.25; I2 = 74%, random effects). There was no statistically significant disparity between both methods concerning shunt-related deaths (RR = 2.11, 95% CI: 0.68-6.60; I2 = 56%, random effects). Included studies after 2000 showed no VAS led to cardiopulmonary complications, and only 1 shunt-related death could be identified. CONCLUSION: Both methods show no significant differences in procedure revisions, infections, and shunt-related mortality. The literature is outdated, research in adults is lacking, and future randomized studies are crucial to understand the profile of VAS when comparing it with VPS. The final decision on which distal site for cerebrospinal shunting to use should be based on the patient's characteristics and the surgeon's expertise.
RESUMEN
Augmented reality (AR) integrates computer-generated content and real-world scenarios. Artificial intelligence's continuous development has allowed AR to be integrated into medicine. Neurosurgery has progressively introduced image-guided technologies. Integration of AR into the operating room has permitted a new perception of neurosurgical diseases, not only for neurosurgical planning, patient positioning, and incision design but also for intraoperative maneuvering and identification of critical neurovascular structures and tumor boundaries. Implementing AR, virtual reality, and mixed reality has introduced neurosurgeons into a new era of artificial interfaces. Meningiomas are the most frequent primary benign tumors commonly related to paramount neurovascular structures and bone landmarks. Integration of preoperative 3D reconstructions used for surgical planning into AR can now be inserted into the microsurgical field, injecting information into head-up displays and microscopes with integrated head-up displays, aiming to guide neurosurgeons intraoperatively to prevent potential injuries. This manuscript aims to provide a mini-review of the usage of AR for intracranial meningioma resection.
RESUMEN
Background: Gliomas represent almost 30% of all primary brain tumors and account for 80% of malignant primary ones. In the last two decades, significant progress has been made in understanding gliomas' molecular origin and development. These advancements have demonstrated a remarkable improvement in classification systems based on mutational markers, which contribute paramount information in addition to traditional histology-based classification. Methods: We performed a narrative review of the literature including each molecular marker described for adult diffuse gliomas used in the World Health Organization (WHO) central nervous system 5. Results: The 2021 WHO classification of diffuse gliomas encompasses many molecular aspects considered in the latest proposed hallmarks of cancer. The outcome of patients with diffuse gliomas relies on their molecular behavior and consequently, to determine clinical outcomes for these patients, molecular profiling should be mandatory. At least, the following molecular markers are necessary for the current most accurate classification of these tumors: (1) isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) IDH-1 mutation, (2) 1p/19q codeletion, (3) cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2A/B deletion, (4) telomerase reverse transcriptase promoter mutation, (5) α-thalassemia/ mental retardation syndrome X-linked loss, (6) epidermal growth factor receptor amplification, and (7) tumor protein P53 mutation. These molecular markers have allowed the differentiation of multiple variations of the same disease, including the differentiation of distinct molecular Grade 4 gliomas. This could imply different clinical outcomes and possibly impact targeted therapies in the years to come. Conclusion: Physicians face different challenging scenarios according to the clinical features of patients with gliomas. In addition to the current advances in clinical decision-making, including radiological and surgical techniques, understanding the disease's molecular pathogenesis is paramount to improving the benefits of its clinical treatments. This review aims to describe straightforwardly the most remarkable aspects of the molecular pathogenesis of diffuse gliomas.
