Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 4 of 4 items for

  • Author or Editor: Peter T. Sylvester x
Clear All Modify Search
Full access

Peter T. Sylvester, Christopher J. Moran, Colin P. Derdeyn, DeWitte T. Cross, Ralph G. Dacey, Gregory J. Zipfel, Albert H. Kim, Ravi Uppaluri, Bruce H. Haughey, Rene Tempelhoff, Keith M. Rich, John Schneider, Richard A. Chole and Michael R. Chicoine

OBJECTIVE

Internal carotid artery (ICA) injury is a rare but severe complication of endonasal surgery. The authors describe their endovascular experience managing ICA injuries after transsphenoidal surgery; they review and summarize the current literature regarding endovascular techniques; and they propose a treatment algorithm based on the available evidence.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 576 transsphenoidal pituitary adenoma resections was performed. Cases of ICA injury occurring at our institution and transfers from other hospitals were evaluated. Endovascular treatments for ICA injury reported in the literature were also reviewed and summarized.

RESULTS

Seven cases were identified from the institutional cohort (mean age 46.3 years, mean follow-up 43.4 months [1–107 months]) that received endovascular treatment for ICA injury. Five injuries occurred at our institution (5 [0.9%] of 576), and 2 injuries occurred at outside hospitals. Three patients underwent ICA sacrifice by coil placement, 2 underwent lesion embolization (coil or stent-assisted coil placement), and 2 underwent endoluminal reconstruction (both with flow diversion devices). Review of the literature identified 98 cases of ICA injury treated with endovascular methods. Of the 105 total cases, 46 patients underwent ICA sacrifice, 28 underwent lesion embolization, and 31 underwent endoluminal reconstruction. Sacrifice of the ICA proved a durable solution in all cases; however, the rate of persistent neurological complications was relatively high (10 [21.7%] of 46). Lesion embolization was primarily performed by coil embolization without stenting (16 cases) and stent-assisted coiling (9 cases). Both techniques had a relatively high rate of at least some technical complication (6 [37.5%] of 16 and 5 [55.6%] of 9, respectively) and major technical complications (i.e., injury, new neurological deficit, or ICA sacrifice) (5 [31.3%] of 16 and 2 [22.2%] of 9, respectively). Endoluminal reconstruction was performed by covered stent (24 cases) and flow diverter (5 cases) placement. Covered stents showed a reasonably high rate of technical complications (10 [41.7%] of 24); however, 8 of these problems were resolved, leaving a small percentage with major technical complications (2 [8.3%] of 24). Flow diverter placement was also well tolerated, with only 1 minor technical complication.

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular treatments including vessel sacrifice, coil embolization (with or without stent assistance), and endoluminal reconstruction offer a tailored approach to ICA injury management after endonasal surgery. Vessel sacrifice remains the definitive treatment for acute, uncontrolled bleeding; however, vessel preservation techniques should be considered carefully in select patients. Multiple factors including vascular anatomy, injury characteristics, and risk of dual antiplatelet therapy should guide best treatment, but more study is needed (particularly with flow diverters) to refine this decision-making process. Ideally, all endovascular treatment options should be available at institutions performing endonasal surgery.

Restricted access

Amar S. Shah, Peter T. Sylvester, Alexander T. Yahanda, Ananth K. Vellimana, Gavin P. Dunn, John Evans, Keith M. Rich, Joshua L. Dowling, Eric C. Leuthardt, Ralph G. Dacey, Albert H. Kim, Robert L. Grubb, Gregory J. Zipfel, Mark Oswood, Randy L. Jensen, Garnette R. Sutherland, Daniel P. Cahill, Steven R. Abram, John Honeycutt, Mitesh Shah, Yu Tao and Michael R. Chicoine

OBJECTIVE

Intraoperative MRI (iMRI) is used in the surgical treatment of glioblastoma, with uncertain effects on outcomes. The authors evaluated the impact of iMRI on extent of resection (EOR) and overall survival (OS) while controlling for other known and suspected predictors.

METHODS

A multicenter retrospective cohort of 640 adult patients with newly diagnosed supratentorial glioblastoma who underwent resection was evaluated. iMRI was performed in 332/640 cases (51.9%). Reviews of MRI features and tumor volumetric analysis were performed on a subsample of cases (n = 286; 110 non-iMRI, 176 iMRI) from a single institution.

RESULTS

The median age was 60.0 years (mean 58.5 years, range 20.5–86.3 years). The median OS was 17.0 months (95% CI 15.6–18.4 months). Gross-total resection (GTR) was achieved in 403/640 cases (63.0%). Kaplan-Meier analysis of 286 cases with volumetric analysis for EOR (grouped into 100%, 95%–99%, 80%–94%, and 50%–79%) showed longer OS for 100% EOR compared to all other groups (p < 0.01). Additional resection after iMRI was performed in 104/122 cases (85.2%) with initial subtotal resection (STR), leading to a 6.3% mean increase in EOR and a 2.2-cm3 mean decrease in tumor volume. For iMRI cases with volumetric analysis, the GTR rate increased from 54/176 (30.7%) on iMRI to 126/176 (71.5%) postoperatively. The EOR was significantly higher in the iMRI group for intended GTR and STR groups (p = 0.02 and p < 0.01, respectively). Predictors of GTR on multivariate logistic regression included iMRI use and intended GTR. Predictors of shorter OS on multivariate Cox regression included older age, STR, isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1) wild type, no O6-methylguanine DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) methylation, and no Stupp therapy. iMRI was a significant predictor of OS on univariate (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.69–0.98; p = 0.03) but not multivariate analyses. Use of iMRI was not associated with an increased rate of new permanent neurological deficits.

CONCLUSIONS

GTR increased OS for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma after adjusting for other prognostic factors. iMRI increased EOR and GTR rate and was a significant predictor of GTR on multivariate analysis; however, iMRI was not an independent predictor of OS. Additional supporting evidence is needed to determine the clinical benefit of iMRI in the management of glioblastoma.