Background:Cerebrospinal fluid(CSF)-diversion procedures have traditionally been the standard of treatment for patients with medically refractive idiopathic intracranial hypertension(IIH).However,dural venous sinus st...Background:Cerebrospinal fluid(CSF)-diversion procedures have traditionally been the standard of treatment for patients with medically refractive idiopathic intracranial hypertension(IIH).However,dural venous sinus stent(VSS)placement has been described as a safe and effective procedure for the management of medically refractive IIH.We performed a meta-analysis comparing outcomes and complications of CSF-diversion procedures,VSS and optic nerve sheath fenestration(ONSF)for the treatment of medically refractive IIH.Methods:Electronic searches were performed using six databases from 1988 to January 2017.Data was extracted and meta-analysed from the identified studies.Results:From 55 pooled studies,there were 538 CSF-diversion cases,224 dural venous stent placements,and 872 ONSF procedures.Similar improvements were found in terms of postoperative headaches(CSF vs.VSS vs.ONSF:84%vs.78%vs.62%,P=0.223),papilledema(CSF vs.VSS vs.ONSF:71%vs.86%vs.77%,P=0.192),whilst visual acuity changes favored venous stenting(CSF vs.VSS vs.ONSF:55%vs.69%vs.44%,P=0.037).There was a significantly lower rate of subsequent procedures with venous stent placement(CSF vs.VSS vs.ONSF:37%vs.13%vs.18%,P<0.001),but other complication rates were similar(CSF vs.VSS vs.ONSF:13%vs.8%vs.14%,P=0.28).Subgroup analysis of lumbar-peritoneal vs.ventriculoperitoneal shunts found no differences in symptom improvements,complications and subsequent procedure rates.Conclusions:Our findings suggest that dural venous sinus stenting may be a viable alternative to traditional surgical interventions in patients who are refractory to medical treatment.展开更多
文摘Background:Cerebrospinal fluid(CSF)-diversion procedures have traditionally been the standard of treatment for patients with medically refractive idiopathic intracranial hypertension(IIH).However,dural venous sinus stent(VSS)placement has been described as a safe and effective procedure for the management of medically refractive IIH.We performed a meta-analysis comparing outcomes and complications of CSF-diversion procedures,VSS and optic nerve sheath fenestration(ONSF)for the treatment of medically refractive IIH.Methods:Electronic searches were performed using six databases from 1988 to January 2017.Data was extracted and meta-analysed from the identified studies.Results:From 55 pooled studies,there were 538 CSF-diversion cases,224 dural venous stent placements,and 872 ONSF procedures.Similar improvements were found in terms of postoperative headaches(CSF vs.VSS vs.ONSF:84%vs.78%vs.62%,P=0.223),papilledema(CSF vs.VSS vs.ONSF:71%vs.86%vs.77%,P=0.192),whilst visual acuity changes favored venous stenting(CSF vs.VSS vs.ONSF:55%vs.69%vs.44%,P=0.037).There was a significantly lower rate of subsequent procedures with venous stent placement(CSF vs.VSS vs.ONSF:37%vs.13%vs.18%,P<0.001),but other complication rates were similar(CSF vs.VSS vs.ONSF:13%vs.8%vs.14%,P=0.28).Subgroup analysis of lumbar-peritoneal vs.ventriculoperitoneal shunts found no differences in symptom improvements,complications and subsequent procedure rates.Conclusions:Our findings suggest that dural venous sinus stenting may be a viable alternative to traditional surgical interventions in patients who are refractory to medical treatment.
