Abstract

There is an increasing tendency to treat spinal dural arteriovenous fistulas (SDAVFs) endovascularly despite the lack of clear evidence favoring embolization over surgery. To compare the initial failure and recurrence rates of primary treatment of SDAVFs by surgery and endovascular techniques. A meta-analysis using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) standard was performed. All the English literature from 2004 onward was evaluated. From each article that compared the 2 treatment modalities, the odds ratio (OR) was calculated. Combined ORs were calculated with Review Manager 5.3 of The Cochrane Collaboration. A total of 35 studies harboring 1112 patients were assessed. Initial definitive fistula occlusion was observed in 588 of 609 surgical patients (96.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 94.8-97.8) vs 363 of 503 endovascularly treated patients (72.2%; 95% CI, 68.1-75.9; P < .001). The combined OR from 18 studies that assessed both treatment modalities (730 patients) was 6.15 (95% CI, 3.45-11.0) in favor of surgical treatment. Late recurrence (13 studies, 480 patients) revealed an OR of 3.15 (95% CI, 1.66-5.96; P < .001) in favor of surgery. In a subgroup, recurrence was reported in 10 of 22 patients (45%) treated with Onyx vs 8 of 35 (23%) treated with n-butyle-2-cyanoacrylate (OR, 2.51; 95% CI, 0.75-8.37; P = .13). Although hampered by inclusion of poor quality studies, this meta-analysis shows a definite advantage of primary surgical treatment of SDAVF over endovascular treatment in initial failure rate and late recurrences. The often-used argument that endovascular techniques have improved and therefore outweigh surgery is not supported by this meta-analysis.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call