No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

The correlation between intracranial and aortic aneurysms remains elusive. Data in the literature are scattered, and outcome reporting is swamped with heterogeneity and single-center bias. This calamity is adding to confusion on decision-making and delays the instigation of appropriate clinical applications. This literature review delves into the abyss of the lack of clinically driven scientific input, and highlights the trends explored thus far.

Strokectomy means surgical excision of infarcted brain tissue post-stroke with preservation of skull integrity, distinguishing it from decompressive hemicraniectomy. Both can mitigate malignant middle cerebral artery (MCA) syndrome but evidence regarding strokectomy is sparse. Here, we report our data and meta-analysis of strokectomy compared to hemicraniectomy for malignant MCA infarction. All malignant MCA stroke cases requiring surgical intervention in a large tertiary centre (January 2012–December 2017, N = 24) were analysed for craniotomy diameter, complications, length of follow-up and outcome measured using the modified Rankin score (mRS). Good outcome was defined as mRS 0–3 at 12 months. In a meta-analysis, outcome from strokectomy (pooled from our cohort and published strokectomy studies) was compared with hemicraniectomy (our cohort pooled with published DECIMAL, DESTINY and HAMLET clinical trial data). In our series (N = 24, 12/12 F/M; mean age: 45.83 ± 8.91, range 29–63 years), 4 patients underwent strokectomy (SC) and 20 hemicraniectomy (HC). Among SC patients, craniotomy diameter was smaller, relative to HC patients (86 ± 13.10 mm, 120 ± 4.10 mm, respectively; p = 0.003), complications were less common (25%, 55%) and poor outcomes were less common (25%, 70%). In the pooled data (N = 41 SC, 71 HC), strokectomy tended towards good outcome more than hemicraniectomy (OR 2.2, 95% CI 0.99–4.7; p = 0.051). In conclusion, strokectomy may be non-inferior, lower risk and cost saving relative to hemicraniectomy sufficiently to be worthy of further investigation and maybe a randomised trial.