Enhancing the quality of evidence, comparability, and reproducibility in brain arteriovenous malformations treated with open surgery research: a systematic review and proposal of a reporting guideline for surgical and clinical outcomes.

Brain Arteriovenous Malformations (bAVMs) are rare but high-risk developmental anomalies of the vascular system. Microsurgery through craniotomy is believed to be the mainstay standard treatment for many grades of bAVMs. However, a significant challenge emerges in the existing body of clinical studies on open surgery for bAVMs: the lack of reproducibility and comparability. This study aims to assess the quality of studies reporting clinical and surgical outcomes for bAVMs treated by open surgery and develop a reporting guideline checklist focusing on essential elements to ensure comparability and reproducibility. This is a systematic literature review that followed the PRISMA guidelines with the search in Medline, Embase, and Web of Science databases, for studies published between January 1, 2018, and December 1, 2023. Included studies were scrutinized focusing on seven domains: (1) Assessment of How Studies Reported on the Baseline Characteristics of the Patient Sample; (2) Assessment and reporting on bAVMs grading, anatomical characteristics, and radiological aspects; (3) Angioarchitecture Assessment and Reporting; (4) Reporting on Pivotal Concepts Definitions; (5) Reporting on Neurosurgeon(s) and Staff Characteristics; (6) Reporting on Surgical Details; (7) Assessing and Reporting Clinical and Surgical Outcomes and AEs. A total of 47 studies comprising 5,884 patients were included. The scrutiny of the studies identified that the current literature in bAVM open surgery is deficient in many aspects, ranging from fundamental pieces of information of methodology to baseline characteristics of included patients and data reporting. Included studies demonstrated a lack of reproducibility that hinders building cumulative evidence. A bAVM Open Surgery Reporting Guideline with 65 items distributed across eight domains was developed and is proposed in this study aiming to address these shortcomings. This systematic review identified that the available literature regarding microsurgery for bAVM treatment, particularly in studies reporting clinical and surgical outcomes, lacks rigorous scientific methodology and quality in reporting. The proposed bAVM Open Surgery Reporting Guideline covers all essential aspects and is a potential solution to address these shortcomings and increase transparency, comparability, and reproducibility in this scenario. This proposal aims to advance the level of evidence and enhance knowledge regarding the Open Surgery treatment for bAVMs.

Ultrasound-Guided Resection of High-Grade Gliomas: A Single-Arm Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: High-grade gliomas (HGGs) present a challenge in neuro-oncology, often necessitating surgical resection for optimal management. Ultrasound holds promise in achieving better gross total resection (GTR) and improving outcomes. This meta-analysis systematically evaluates literature providing robust evidence on the use of intraoperative ultrasonography (iUSG) in HGG resection. METHODS: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines a comprehensive search was made across PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science utilized terms related to iUSG for HGG resection. The meta-analysis examined randomized trials and observational cohort studies on iUSG-guided HGG resection. GTR, subtotal resection, and postresection complications were assessed. Statistical analysis, employing R software for a single proportion analysis with confidence intervals of 95%, I2 statistics for heterogeneity, and the instrumental variables method with restricted maximum likelihood for a random effects model. RESULTS: A total of 178 patients were included in our study. The GTR overall rate in patients with iUSG-guided resection was found to be 64% (95% confidence interval: 46%-81%). Two-dimensional ultrasound remains dominant at 80% against other options of ultrasound. Complications were reported at a 15% rate (95% confidence interval: 7%-23%). CONCLUSIONS: Our study provided robust data on the utilization of iUSG-guided resection regarding the attainment of GTR and the complications related to resection. However, challenges such as outcome heterogeneity and limited complication reporting highlight the need for further research to optimize iUSG in HGG treatment. Long-term follow-up studies on patient survival and postsurgery quality of life will complement existing literature, guiding clinical practices in managing HGG.

Posterior Inferior Cerebellar Artery-Posterior Inferior Cerebellar Artery Bypass versus Occipital Artery-Posterior Inferior Cerebellar Artery Bypass for Treating Posterior Circulation Aneurysms: A Systematic Review and Comparative Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: When traditional therapies are unsuitable, revascularization becomes essential for managing posterior inferior cerebellar artery (PICA) or vertebral artery aneurysms. Notably, the PICA-PICA bypass has emerged as a promising option, overshadowing the occipital artery-PICA (OA-PICA) bypass. The objective was to compare the safety and efficacy of OA-PICA and PICA-PICA bypasses. METHODS: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of OA-PICA and PICA-PICA bypasses for treating posterior circulation aneurysms. RESULTS: We analyzed 13 studies for the PICA-PICA bypass and 16 studies on the OA-PICA bypass, involving 84 and 110 patients, respectively. The median average follow-up for PICA-PICA bypass was 8 months (2-50.3 months), while for OA-PICA, it was 27.8 months (6-84 months). The patency rate for OA-PICA was 97% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 92%-100%) and 100% (95% CI: 95%-100%) for PICA-PICA. Complication rates were 29% (95% CI: 10%-47%) for OA-PICA and 12% (95% CI: 3%-21%) for PICA-PICA. Good clinical outcomes were observed in 71% (95% CI: 52%-90%) of OA-PICA patients and 87% (95% CI: 75%-100%) of PICA-PICA patients. Procedure-related mortality was 1% (95% CI: 0%-6%) for OA-PICA and 1% (95% CI: 0%-10%) for PICA-PICA. CONCLUSIONS: Both procedures have demonstrated promising results in efficacy and safety. PICA-PICA exhibits slightly better patency rates, better clinical outcomes, and fewer complications, but with a lack of substantial follow-up and a smaller sample size. The choice between these procedures should be based on the surgeon's expertise and the patient's anatomy.

Ventriculoatrial Shunt Versus Ventriculoperitoneal Shunt: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

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.