Browse

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for

  • Refine by Access: all x
  • By Author: Stavrinou, Pantelis x
Clear All
Restricted access

Lukas Goertz, Christina Hamisch, Christoph Kabbasch, Jan Borggrefe, Marion Hof, Anna-Katharina Dempfle, Moritz Lenschow, Pantelis Stavrinou, Marco Timmer, Gerrit Brinker, Roland Goldbrunner, and Boris Krischek

OBJECTIVE

Cerebral infarction is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality related to microsurgical clipping of intracranial aneurysms. The objective of this study was to determine the impact of aneurysm shape and neck configuration on cerebral infarction after aneurysm surgery.

METHODS

The authors retrospectively reviewed consecutive cases of ruptured and unruptured aneurysms treated with microsurgical clipping at their institution between 2010 and 2018. Three-dimensional reconstructions from preoperative computed tomography and digital subtraction angiography were used to determine aneurysm shape (regular/complex) and neck configuration (regular/irregular). Morphological and procedure-related risk factors for cerebral infarction were identified using univariate and multivariate statistical analyses.

RESULTS

Among 243 patients with 252 aneurysms (148 ruptured, 104 unruptured), the overall cerebral infarction rate was 17.1%. Infarction tended to occur more often in aneurysms with complex shape (p = 0.084). Likewise, aneurysms with an irregular neck had a significantly higher rate of infarction (37.5%) than aneurysms with regular neck configuration (10.1%, p < 0.001). Aneurysms with an irregular neck were associated with a higher rate of intraoperative rupture (p = 0.003) and temporary parent artery occlusion (p = 0.037). In the multivariate analysis, irregular neck configuration was identified as an independent risk factor for infarction (OR 4.2, 95% CI 1.9–9.4, p < 0.001), whereas the association between aneurysm shape and infarction was not significant (p = 0.966).

CONCLUSIONS

Irregular aneurysm neck configuration represents an independent risk factor for cerebral infarction during microsurgical clipping of both ruptured and unruptured aneurysms.

Full access

Pantelis Stavrinou, Aristotelis Kalyvas, Stefan Grau, Christina Hamisch, Norbert Galldiks, Sotirios Katsigiannis, Christoph Kabbasch, Marco Timmer, Roland Goldbrunner, and George Stranjalis

OBJECTIVE

Data on the survival effects of supportive care compared to second-line multimodal treatment for glioblastoma progression are scarce. Thus, the authors assessed survival in two population-based, similar cohorts from two European university hospitals with different treatment strategies at first progression.

METHODS

The authors retrospectively identified patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma treated at two neurooncological centers. After diagnosis, patients from both centers received identical treatments, but at tumor progression each center used a different approach. In the majority of cases, at center A (Greece), supportive care or a single therapeutic modality was offered at progression, whereas center B (Germany) provided multimodal second-line therapy. The main outcome measure was survival after progression (SaP). The influence of the treatment strategy on SaP was assessed by multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

One hundred three patients from center A and 156 from center B were included. Tumor progression was observed in 86 patients (center A) and 136 patients (center B). At center A, 53 patients (72.6%) received supportive care alone, while at center B, 91 patients (80.5%) received second-line treatment. Progression-free survival at both centers was similar (9.4 months [center A] vs 9.0 months [center B]; p = 0.97), but SaP was significantly improved in the patients treated with multimodal second-line therapy at center B (7 months, 95% CI 5.3–8.7 months) compared to those treated with supportive care or a single therapeutic modality at center A (4.5 months, 95% CI 3.5–5.5 months; p = 0.003). In the multivariate analysis, the treatment center was an independent prognostic factor for overall survival (HR 1.59, 95% CI 0.17–2.15; p = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment strategy favoring multimodal second-line treatment over minimal treatment or supportive care at glioblastoma progression is associated with significantly better overall survival.