颈内动脉(ICA)动脉瘤通常需要暂时闭塞以促进安全夹闭。通过眼动脉和海绵状ICA分支的快速逆行流动使简单的捕获不足以软化动脉瘤。逆行抽吸减压(RSD),或者达拉斯RSD,该技术在1990年被描述,试图克服其中一些治疗限制。对RSD技术的经常批评是据称宫颈ICA夹层的高风险。1991年引入了血管内修饰(血管内RSD),但没有研究比较2个RSD变化。
作者对MEDLINE/PubMed和WebofScience进行了系统评价,并确定了1990-2016年的所有研究,其中DallasRSD或血管内RSD用于治疗突旁动脉瘤。完成了对数据的汇总分析,以确定重要的人口统计学和治疗特异性变量。主要结果指标定义为成功的动脉瘤闭塞。次要结果变量分为总体和RSD特异性发病率和死亡率。
26项RSD研究符合纳入标准(525例患者,78.9%女性)。患者平均年龄为53.5岁。大多数动脉瘤未破裂(56.6%)和巨大(49%)。最常见的表现是蛛网膜下腔出血(43.6%)和视力改变(25.3%)。动脉瘤闭塞率为95%。平均临时闭塞时间为12.7分钟。在19.9%的患者中发现了短暂或永久性的发病率。RSD特异性并发症发生率低(1.3%)。总死亡率为4.2%,2例死亡(0.4%)归因于RSD技术本身。90.7%的患者报告良好或公平的结果。两个亚组的动脉瘤闭塞率相似(达拉斯RSD94.3%,血管内RSD96.3%,p=0.33)。尽管复杂(巨大或破裂)动脉瘤的发生频率较高,达拉斯RSD与较低的RSD相关发病率相关(0.6%vs2.9%,p=0.03),与血管内RSD亚组相比。血管内RSD亚组的死亡率有较高的趋势(6.4%vs3.1%,p=0.08)。在血管内RSD组中,末次随访时神经系统预后不良的患者比例明显更高(15.4%vs7.2%,p<0.01)。
使用RSD技术治疗颈突旁ICA动脉瘤与高动脉瘤闭塞率相关,良好的长期神经系统结果,和低RSD相关的发病率和死亡率。RSD文献的回顾显示,与类似的血管内方法相比,没有证据表明与达拉斯技术相关的并发症发生率更高。在达拉斯RSD和血管内RSD的亚组分析中,两组的消失率相似,但在Dallas技术亚组中,RSD相关发病率较低.在它首次出版25年后,RSD仍然是一种有用的神经外科技术,可用于治疗大型和巨大的突突旁动脉瘤。
Paraclinoid internal carotid artery (ICA) aneurysms frequently require temporary occlusion to facilitate safe clipping. Brisk retrograde flow through the ophthalmic artery and cavernous ICA branches make simple trapping inadequate to soften the aneurysm. The retrograde suction decompression (RSD), or Dallas RSD, technique was described in 1990 in an attempt to overcome some of those treatment limitations. A frequent criticism of the RSD technique is an allegedly high risk of cervical ICA dissection. An endovascular modification was introduced in 1991 (endovascular RSD) but no studies have compared the 2 RSD variations.
The authors performed a systematic
review of MEDLINE/PubMed and Web of Science and identified all studies from 1990-2016 in which either Dallas RSD or endovascular RSD was used for treatment of paraclinoid aneurysms. A pooled analysis of the data was completed to identify important demographic and treatment-specific variables. The primary outcome measure was defined as successful aneurysm obliteration. Secondary outcome variables were divided into overall and RSD-specific morbidity and mortality rates.
Twenty-six RSD studies met the inclusion criteria (525 patients, 78.9% female). The mean patient age was 53.5 years. Most aneurysms were unruptured (56.6%) and giant (49%). The most common presentations were subarachnoid hemorrhage (43.6%) and vision changes (25.3%). The aneurysm obliteration rate was 95%. The mean temporary occlusion time was 12.7 minutes. Transient or permanent morbidity was seen in 19.9% of the patients. The RSD-specific complication rate was low (1.3%). The overall mortality rate was 4.2%, with 2 deaths (0.4%) attributable to the RSD technique itself. Good or fair outcome were reported in 90.7% of the patients.Aneurysm obliteration rates were similar in the 2 subgroups (Dallas RSD 94.3%, endovascular RSD 96.3%, p = 0.33). Despite a higher frequency of complex (giant or ruptured) aneurysms, Dallas RSD was associated with lower RSD-related morbidity (0.6% vs 2.9%, p = 0.03), compared with the endovascular RSD subgroup. There was a trend toward higher mortality in the endovascular RSD subgroup (6.4% vs 3.1%, p = 0.08). The proportion of patients with poor neurological outcome at last follow-up was significantly higher in the endovascular RSD group (15.4% vs 7.2%, p < 0.01).
The treatment of paraclinoid ICA aneurysms using the RSD technique is associated with high aneurysm obliteration rates, good long-term neurological outcome, and low RSD-related morbidity and mortality.
Review of the RSD literature showed no evidence of a higher complication rate associated with the Dallas technique compared with similar endovascular methods. On a subgroup analysis of Dallas RSD and endovascular RSD, both groups achieved similar obliteration rates, but a lower RSD-related morbidity was seen in the Dallas technique subgroup. Twenty-five years after its initial publication, RSD remains a useful neurosurgical technique for the management of large and giant paraclinoid aneurysms.