Search PubMedSearch

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Dural arteriovenous fistula”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

20 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

Outcomes of stereotactic radiosurgery for spine multiple myeloma-a systematic review.

Spinal involvement in multiple myeloma (MM) commonly results in pain, vertebral instability, epidural spinal cord compression, and neurological deficits. Although conventional external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) remains the standard radiation modality because of the radiosensitive nature of MM, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has emerged as a highly conformal treatment option capable of delivering focal high-dose radiation while sparing adjacent spinal cord structures and uninvolved bone marrow. This systematic review evaluated the clinical outcomes and safety profile of SRS for spinal MM. A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify studies evaluating SRS for spinal MM. Extracted variables included patient demographics, tumor characteristics, treatment parameters, radiographic outcomes, pain response, neurological outcomes, local control, overall survival, and adverse events. Three retrospective studies comprising 133 patients and 181 treated spinal lesions met the inclusion criteria. Median patient age ranged from 59 to 65 years, with a slight male predominance across studies. Thoracic spine lesions represented the most treated region (55.5-67.7%). Median prescribed SRS dose was 14-16 Gy, predominantly delivered in a single fraction. Median follow-up ranged from 11.2 to 27.8 months. Local control rates ranged from 89.4 to 100%, with 6- and 12-month local control rates of 94% and 91%, respectively, in one study. Pain improvement was reported in 41-88% of treated patients/sites, with a median time to pain relief of 1.6 months in one cohort. Neurological improvement occurred in 56-71.4% of patients with preexisting deficits. Reported adverse events included vertebral compression fractures, fracture progression, pain flare, and tracheoesophageal fistula. De novo vertebral fractures ranged from 3.6 to 7%, while fracture progression ranged from 14 to 18%. SRS appears to provide excellent local control and meaningful pain and neurological improvement in patients with spinal MM, with acceptable toxicity profiles. The highly conformal nature of SRS may preserve uninvolved bone marrow and facilitate continuation of systemic therapy. However, the current evidence is limited to small retrospective studies with heterogeneous reporting, and further prospective comparative studies are needed to better define the role of SRS relative to conventional EBRT in spinal MM.

Humans

Efficacy and safety of Vertebral Body Sliding Osteotomy (VBSO) versus Anterior Cervical Corpectomy and Fusion (ACCF): A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) is an established treatment for complex cervical myelopathy and ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL), yet it carries risks of dural injury and graft-related failure. Vertebral body sliding osteotomy (VBSO) is a novel technique that avoids direct OPLL manipulation by translating the vertebral body anteriorly to enlarge the spinal canal. Although early studies suggest VBSO may reduce complications, evidence remains limited to retrospective cohorts from the technique's developers, with no high-level synthesis directly comparing it to ACCF. We therefore conducted this meta-analysis to compare clinical outcomes, complications, and radiographic parameters between VBSO and ACCF, while critically evaluating the certainty of the evidence and its generalizability. A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science (through June 2025) identified four retrospective cohort studies (449 patients; VBSO n&#x2009;=&#x2009;209, ACCF n&#x2009;=&#x2009;240). A critical limitation of the included evidence is that all studies originated from a single institution (Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea) with overlapping enrollment periods (2006-2020), increasing the risk of duplicate patient cohorts. Furthermore, the first author (D.-H. Lee) is the same across all included studies, introducing substantial surgeon-expertise bias. Outcomes included neurological recovery, functional outcomes, complications, and radiographic parameters. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Neurological recovery and functional outcomes were comparable between groups. ACCF showed slightly higher postoperative JOA scores (MD -0.59, 95% CI -0.96 to -0.22; p&#x2009;<&#x2009;0.01), though the clinical relevance is uncertain. VBSO was associated with reduced risks of graft subsidence (RR 0.23; p&#x2009;<&#x2009;0.01), pseudarthrosis (RR 0.25; p&#x2009;<&#x2009;0.01), revision surgery (RR 0.17; p&#x2009;<&#x2009;0.01), and neurological deterioration (RR 0.17; p&#x2009;=&#x2009;0.02). CSF leakage appeared to be less frequent with VBSO, but the difference was not statistically significant. VBSO was also associated with greater postoperative cervical lordosis and shorter hospital stays. However, these findings must be interpreted with extreme caution: leave-one-out sensitivity analyses revealed that the results for postoperative JOA score, neurological deterioration, and pseudarthrosis were fragile and driven by a single large study, meaning these apparent advantages may not be robust. In addition, GRADE assessment revealed very low certainty across all assessed outcomes. Given the very low certainty of evidence, the preliminary nature of the available data, the fragility of several key findings, and the critical limitations of the underlying studies (single institution, overlapping patient cohorts, developer bias, and systematic imbalance in follow-up duration), the observed differences should be considered hypothesis-generating rather than definitive. VBSO should not be considered a proven superior alternative to ACCF based on the current evidence. Prospective, multicenter, international studies with balanced follow-up durations conducted by independent surgical teams are required before broader adoption can be recommended.

Humans