ArticleBrain & spine2025
Predictive factors and comparative analysis of surgical vs. endovascular treatment for spinal dural arteriovenous fistulas: a 22-year experience at a neurovascular and spine center.
Article in Brain & spine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Spinal dural arteriovenous fistula (SDAVF) is a rare disease with insidious clinical manifestations that can often be overlooked on initial examination. Our aim was to identify predictive factors associated with favorable long-term outcomes and to compare the clinical results between surgical and endovascular treatment. Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted of 81 patients with SDAVF who underwent either surgical (n = 70, 86.4 %) or endovascular (n = 11, 13.6 %) treatment at our hospital between 2002 and 2023, with a mean follow-up duration of 22.4 months. Results: A significantly greater proportion of surgical (S) patients (45/70, 64.3 %) showed improvement in the modified Aminoff and Logue Scale (mALS) between admission and last follow-up compared to endovascular (E) patients (3/11, 27.3 %; p = 0.043). There were no significant differences between the two groups over the clinical course (preoperative, postoperative, first, second, and third follow-up) in terms of mALS, American Spinal Injury Association Motor Score (ASIA-MS), back pain, or sensory disturbances. Incomplete or failed fistula closure occurred significantly more frequently in the endovascular group than in the surgical group (S: 3/70, 4.3 % vs. E: 5/11, 45.5 %, p < 0.001). The time interval between MRI-based diagnosis and treatment was identified as an independent predictor of long-term mALS improvement in the multivariate logistic regression analysis (0.978 (0.959-0.997), p = 0.026). Conclusions: Surgical treatment of SDAVF is generally safe and effective and shows superior outcomes compared to endovascular treatment; however, endovascular therapy remains an important option in special cases. Moreover, the time interval between MRI-based diagnosis and surgical or endovascular treatment plays a critical role in determining long-term clinical outcomes of SDAVF patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.