Although surgical resection is associated with a complete cure in most cases of spinal dural arteriovenous fistulas (SDAVF), there has been an increasing trend towards embolisation. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing surgical resection with endovascular treatment in terms of success of treatment, rate of recurrence and complications. A literature search was conducted using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Strength of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group system. Surgical outcomes such as initial treatment failure, late recurrence, neurological improvement and complications were compared between the two approaches. We included 57 studies with 2029 patients, of which 32 studies with 1341 patients directly compared surgery (n=590) and embolisation (n=751). Surgery was found to be associated with significantly lower odds of initial treatment failure (OR: 0.15, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.24, I2 0%, p<0.001) and late recurrence (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.39, I2 0%, p<0.001). The odds of neurological improvement following surgery were also significantly higher compared with embolisation alone (OR: 2.73, CI:1.67 to 4.48, I2 :49.5%, p<0.001). No difference in complication rates was observed between the two approaches (OR 1.78, 95% CI 0.97 to 3.26, I2 0%, p=0.063). Onyx was associated with significantly higher odds of initial failure/late recurrence as compared with n-butyl 2-cyanoacrylate (OR: 3.87, CI: 1.73 to 8.68, I2 :0%, p<0.001). Surgery may be associated with superior outcomes for SDAVFs in comparison to endovascular occlusion. Newer embolisation agents like Onyx have not conferred a significant improvement in occlusion rate.

No abstract

OBJECTIVE Anterior-to-psoas lumbar interbody fusion (ATP-LIF), more commonly referred to as oblique lateral interbody fusion, and lateral transpsoas lumbar interbody fusion (LTP-LIF), also known as extreme lateral interbody fusion, are the two commonly used lateral approaches for performing a lumbar fusion procedure. These approaches help overcome some of the technical challenges associated with traditional approaches for lumbar fusion. In this systematic review and indirect meta-analysis, the authors compared operative and patient-reported outcomes between these two select approaches using available studies. METHODS Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) approach, the authors conducted an electronic search using the PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus databases for studies published before May 1, 2019. Indirect meta-analysis was conducted on fusion rate, cage movement (subsidence plus migration), permanent deficits, and transient deficits; results were depicted as forest plots of proportions (effect size [ES]). RESULTS A total of 63 studies were included in this review after applying the exclusion criteria, of which 26 studies investigated the outcomes of ATP-LIF, while 37 studied the outcomes of LTP-LIF. The average fusion rate was found to be similar between the two groups (ES 0.97, 95% CI 0.84–1.00 vs ES 0.94, 95% CI 0.91–0.97; p = 0.561). The mean incidence of cage movement was significantly higher in the ATP-LIF group compared with the LTP-LIF group (stand-alone: ES 0.15, 95% CI 0.06–0.27 vs ES 0.09, 95% CI 0.04–0.16 [p = 0.317]; combined: ES 0.18, 95% CI 0.07–0.32 vs ES 0.02, 95% CI 0.00–0.05 [p = 0.002]). The mean incidence of reoperations was significantly higher in patients undergoing ATP-LIF than in those undergoing LTP-LIF (ES 0.02, 95% CI 0.01–0.03 vs ES 0.04, 95% CI 0.02–0.07; p = 0.012). The mean incidence of permanent deficits was similar between the two groups (stand-alone: ES 0.03, 95% CI 0.01–0.06 vs ES 0.05, 95% CI 0.01–0.12 [p = 0.204]; combined: ES 0.03, 95% CI 0.01–0.06 vs ES 0.03, 95% CI 0.00–0.08 [p = 0.595]). The postoperative changes in visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were both found to be higher for ATP-LIF relative to LTP-LIF (VAS: weighted average 4.11 [SD 2.03] vs weighted average 3.75 [SD 1.94] [p = 0.004]; ODI: weighted average 28.3 [SD 5.33] vs weighted average 24.3 [SD 4.94] [p < 0.001]). CONCLUSIONS These analyses indicate that while both approaches are associated with similar fusion rates, ATP-LIF may be related to higher odds of cage movement and reoperations as compared with LTP-LIF. Furthermore, there is no difference in rates of permanent deficits between the two procedures.