Surgical Strategies for Ruptured Complex Aneurysms Using Skull Base Technique and Revascularization Surgeries

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.

Ischemic Stroke Revascularization

Extracranial-intracranial (EC-IC) bypass is one of the most fundamental techniques for ischemic cerebrovascular disease (CVD). We describe the standard surgical strategies, advanced techniques, and controversies concerning revascularization of ischemic stroke. The standard surgical strategies and techniques emphasize how to determine surgical indication, which should be decided for symptomatic internal carotid artery or middle cerebral artery (MCA) occlusive disease with misery perfusion detected by quantitative single photon emission computed tomography. Advanced techniques are available for complex situations such as posterior circulation revascularization, Bonnet bypass for common carotid artery obstruction, and various EC-IC bypasses for ischemia in the MCA and/or anterior cerebral artery territories using inter-grafts such as femoral veins and radial arteries, illustrated by our surgical results and experiences. Controversies include endovascular treatment complementary to EC-IC bypass. Finally, we advocate emergent EC-IC bypass for progressive ischemic CVD, particularly for contraindication or unsuccessful treatment after intravenous tissue plasminogen activator administration and/or endovascular thrombolysis. EC-IC bypass surgery can be reliable for ischemic CVD under strict optimal surgical indications using safe and reliable surgical techniques.

Quantitative Anatomic Study of the Minipterional Craniotomy in the Paraclinoid Region: Benefits of Extradural Anterior Clinoidectomy

BACKGROUND

Extradural anterior clinoidectomy (eAC) via the minipterional craniotomy (MPT) approach (MPT+eAC) has been recently introduced to the neurosurgical armamentarium to improve access to anterior and middle fossa skull base structures using a minimally invasive approach. However, the effect of extradural clinoidectomy on surgical exposure with the minipterional approach has not been evaluated. Moreover, the effect of eAC on surgical maneuverability has not been established for either traditional pterional or minipterional craniotomy. We sought to illustrate the microsurgical anatomy of the MPT+eAC and to evaluate the effect of eAC on surgical exposure and maneuverability.

METHODS

The area of exposure, area of surgical freedom, and maneuverability score for the MPT approach and MPT+eAC were compared in 5 cadaveric heads.

RESULTS

Compared with the MPT approach, the MPT+eAC enlarged the area of exposure approximately twofold (93 cm² vs. 184 cm²; P < 0.001). All targets considered in the paraclinoid region, including the posterior communicating artery origin, prechiasmatic region, and ophthalmic artery origin, showed an increase in surgical freedom and maneuverability after performing eAC. Targets remote from the clinoid such as the internal carotid bifurcation were not affected.

CONCLUSIONS

MPT+eAC offers a larger area of exposure and greater surgical freedom and maneuverability at the paraclinoid region using this minimally invasive approach.