Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for

  • Author or Editor: Yusuke Watanabe x
Clear All Modify Search
Restricted access

Takehiko Takagi, Yosuke Ogiri, Ryu Kato, Mitsuhiko Kodama, Yusuke Yamanoi, Wataru Nishino, Yoshihisa Masakado and Masahiko Watanabe

An amputated nerve transferred to a nearby muscle produces a transcutaneously detectable electromyographic signal corresponding to the transferred nerve; this technique is known as targeted muscle reinnervation (TMR). There are 2 issues to overcome to improve this technique: the caliber and the selectivity of the transferred nerve. It is optimal to select and transfer each motor fascicle to achieve highly developed myoelectric arms with multiple degrees-of-freedom motion. The authors report on a case in which they first identified the remnant stumps of the amputated median and radial nerves and then identified the sensory fascicles using somatosensory evoked potentials. Each median nerve fascicle was transferred to the long head branch of the biceps or the brachialis branch, while the short head branch of the biceps was retained for elbow flexion. Each radial nerve fascicle was transferred to the medial or lateral head branch of the triceps, while the long head branch of the triceps was retained for elbow extension. Electrophysiological and functional tests were conducted in the reinnervated muscles. Functional and electrophysiological improvement was noted, with marked improvement in the identification rate for each digit, forearm, and elbow motion after the selective nerve transfers. The authors note that more selective nerve transfers may be required for the development of prostheses with multiple degrees of freedom.

Restricted access

Keisuke Takai, Toshiki Endo, Takao Yasuhara, Toshitaka Seki, Kei Watanabe, Yuki Tanaka, Ryu Kurokawa, Hideaki Kanaya, Fumiaki Honda, Takashi Itabashi, Osamu Ishikawa, Hidetoshi Murata, Takahiro Tanaka, Yusuke Nishimura, Kaoru Eguchi, Toshihiro Takami, Yusuke Watanabe, Takeo Nishida, Masafumi Hiramatsu, Tatsuya Ohtonari, Satoshi Yamaguchi, Takafumi Mitsuhara, Seishi Matsui, Hisaaki Uchikado, Gohsuke Hattori, Nobutaka Horie, Hitoshi Yamahata and Makoto Taniguchi

OBJECTIVE

Spinal arteriovenous shunts are rare vascular lesions and are classified into 4 types (types I–IV). Due to rapid advances in neuroimaging, spinal epidural AVFs (edAVFs), which are similar to type I spinal dural AVFs (dAVFs), have recently been increasingly reported. These 2 entities have several important differences that influence the treatment strategy selected. The purposes of the present study were to compare angiographic and clinical differences between edAVFs and dAVFs and to provide treatment strategies for edAVFs based on a multicenter cohort.

METHODS

A total of 280 consecutive patients with thoracic and lumbosacral spinal dural arteriovenous fistulas (dAVFs) and edAVFs with intradural venous drainage were collected from 19 centers. After angiographic and clinical comparisons, the treatment failure rate by procedure, risk factors for treatment failure, and neurological outcomes were statistically analyzed in edAVF cases.

RESULTS

Final diagnoses after an angiographic review included 199 dAVFs and 81 edAVFs. At individual centers, 29 patients (36%) with edAVFs were misdiagnosed with dAVFs. Spinal edAVFs were commonly fed by multiple feeding arteries (54%) shunted into a single or multiple intradural vein(s) (91% and 9%) through a dilated epidural venous plexus. Preoperative modified Rankin Scale (mRS) and Aminoff-Logue gait and micturition grades were worse in patients with edAVFs than in those with dAVFs. Among the microsurgical (n = 42), endovascular (n = 36), and combined (n = 3) treatment groups of edAVFs, the treatment failure rate was significantly higher in the index endovascular treatment group (7.5%, 31%, and 0%, respectively). Endovascular treatment was found to be associated with significantly higher odds of initial treatment failure (OR 5.72, 95% CI 1.45–22.6). In edAVFs, the independent risk factor for treatment failure after microsurgery was the number of intradural draining veins (OR 17.9, 95% CI 1.56–207), while that for treatment failure after the endovascular treatment was the number of feeders (OR 4.11, 95% CI 1.23–13.8). Postoperatively, mRS score and Aminoff-Logue gait and micturition grades significantly improved in edAVFs with a median follow-up of 31 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Spinal epidural AVFs with intradural venous drainage are a distinct entity and may be classified as type V spinal vascular malformations. Based on the largest multicenter cohort, this study showed that primary microsurgery was superior to endovascular treatment for initial treatment success in patients with spinal edAVFs.