SynthesisNeurosurgical review2024
Surgery versus endovascular treatment for spinal dural arteriovenous fistulas: a multicenter experience and systematic literature review.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance angiography versus digital subtraction angiography for spinal dural arteriovenous fistulas: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Neurosurgical review · 2026Pooled it
- Single-position surgery with intraoperative digital subtraction angiography via a transpopliteal approach for complex spinal vascular lesions: illustrative cases.Journal of neurosurgery. Case lessons · 2026Article
- Remote brainstem lesion associated with lower cervical spinal dural arteriovenous fistula-venous outflow bottleneck: a case report and literature review.Therapeutic advances in neurological disorders · 2026Article
- Surgical resection of spinal dural arteriovenous fistula with micro-tubular retractors under CT guidance: cases report and literature review.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Fluorescein-guided surgical ablation of spinal dural arteriovenous fistula (SDAVF) is a safe and effective add-on to ensure surgical closure.Brain & spine · 2026Article
- Implementation of ORBEYEMedicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Sublingual Nitroglycerin Administration before Computed Tomography Angiography for Detection of the Artery of Adamkiewicz in Patients with Spinal Dural Arteriovenous Fistula.Journal of neuroendovascular therapy · 2025Article
- Spinal Intramedullary Tumors.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2024Review
- Subarachnoid hemorrhage triggered by spinal cord vascular malformation in a pediatric patient: case report and review of literature.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
25 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Surgery and endovascular therapy are the primary treatment options for spinal dural arteriovenous fistula (SDAVF). Due to the absence of a consensus regarding which therapy yields a superior outcome, we conducted a comparative analysis of the surgical and endovascular treatment of SDAVF through a multicenter case series and a systematic literature review. Patients with SDAVF, surgically or endovascularly treated at four neurosurgical centers from January 2001 to December 2021, were included in this study. Level of SDAVF, primary treatment modality, baseline and post-procedural neurological status were collected. The primary outcomes were failure, complication rates, and a newly introduced parameter named as therapeutic delay. A systematic review of the literature was performed according to PRISMA-P guidelines. The systematic review identified 511 papers, of which 18 were eligible for analysis, for a total of 814 patients, predominantly male (72%) with a median age of 61 and mainly thoracic SDAVFs (65%). The failure rate was significantly higher for endovascular therapy (20%) compared to surgery (4%) (p < 0.01). Neurological complications were generally rare, with similar rates among the two groups (endovascular 2.9%; surgery 2.6%). Endovascular treatment showed a statistically significantly higher rate of persistent neurological complications than surgical treatment (2.9% versus 0.2%; p < 0.01). Both treatments showed similar rates of clinical improvement based on Aminoff Logue scale score. The multicenter, retrospective study involved 131 patients. The thoracic region was the most frequent location (58%), followed by lumbar (37%). Paraparesis (45%) and back pain (41%) were the most common presenting symptoms, followed by bladder dysfunction (34%) and sensory disturbances (21%). The mean clinical follow-up was 21 months, with all patients followed for at least 12 months. No statistically significant differences were found in demographic and clinical data, lesion characteristics, or outcomes between the two treatment groups. Median pre-treatment Aminoff-Logue score was 2.6, decreasing to 1.4 post-treatment with both treatments. The mean therapeutic delay for surgery and endovascular treatment showed no statistically significant difference. Surgical treatment demonstrated significantly lower failure rates (5% vs. 46%, p < 0.01). In the surgical group, 2 transient neurological (1 epidural hematoma, 1 CSF leak) and 3 non-neurological (3 wound infections) complications were recorded; while 2 permanent neurological (spinal infarcts), and 5 non-neurological (inguinal hematomas) were reported in the endovascular group. According to the literature review and this multicenter clinical series, surgical treatment has a significantly lower failure rate than endovascular treatment. Although the two treatments have similar complication rates, endovascular treatment seems to have a higher rate of persistent neurological complications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38713376What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.