Pros, cons, and current indications of open craniotomy versus gamma knife in the treatment of arteriovenous malformations and the role of endovascular embolization.

Daniel L. Surdell, Sumon Bhattacharjee, Christopher M. Loftus

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The successful treatment of an intracranial arteriovenous malformation poses both technical and conceptual problems to the neurosurgeon. Treatment decisions are made in light of current understanding of the natural history of these lesions. It is important to understand the pros, cons and current indication of open craniotomy vs. gamma knife in the treatment of arteriovenous malformations and the role of endovascular embolization. Surgical removal of an arteriovenous malformation is indicated when the operative risk is less than the morbidity and mortality associated with its natural history. The treatment goal of complete angiographic obliteration of arteriovenous malformations is achieved most effectively by microneurosurgery in low-grade lesions. Large lesions frequently require a combination of embolization and microsurgery. Although recent advances in technology and medical management have allowed previously inoperable arteriovenous malformations to be surgically excised, there is still a small group of arteriovenous malformations that cannot be excised safely due to their size and location. Stereotactic radiosurgery is clearly an important adjunct in the multimodality treatment approach for large arteriovenous malformations. Endovascular embolization can potentially increase safety and efficacy in the treatment of arteriovenous malformations when applied to selective cases with well-defined treatment goals.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)347-353
Number of pages7
JournalNeurological research
Volume24
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2002

Fingerprint

Craniotomy
Arteriovenous Malformations
Natural History
Therapeutics
Intracranial Arteriovenous Malformations
Microsurgery
Radiosurgery
Technology
Morbidity
Safety
Mortality

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Neurology
  • Clinical Neurology

Cite this

Pros, cons, and current indications of open craniotomy versus gamma knife in the treatment of arteriovenous malformations and the role of endovascular embolization. / Surdell, Daniel L.; Bhattacharjee, Sumon; Loftus, Christopher M.

In: Neurological research, Vol. 24, No. 4, 06.2002, p. 347-353.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

@article{0a383f70f1c142d5a469d53b3b007369,
title = "Pros, cons, and current indications of open craniotomy versus gamma knife in the treatment of arteriovenous malformations and the role of endovascular embolization.",
abstract = "The successful treatment of an intracranial arteriovenous malformation poses both technical and conceptual problems to the neurosurgeon. Treatment decisions are made in light of current understanding of the natural history of these lesions. It is important to understand the pros, cons and current indication of open craniotomy vs. gamma knife in the treatment of arteriovenous malformations and the role of endovascular embolization. Surgical removal of an arteriovenous malformation is indicated when the operative risk is less than the morbidity and mortality associated with its natural history. The treatment goal of complete angiographic obliteration of arteriovenous malformations is achieved most effectively by microneurosurgery in low-grade lesions. Large lesions frequently require a combination of embolization and microsurgery. Although recent advances in technology and medical management have allowed previously inoperable arteriovenous malformations to be surgically excised, there is still a small group of arteriovenous malformations that cannot be excised safely due to their size and location. Stereotactic radiosurgery is clearly an important adjunct in the multimodality treatment approach for large arteriovenous malformations. Endovascular embolization can potentially increase safety and efficacy in the treatment of arteriovenous malformations when applied to selective cases with well-defined treatment goals.",
author = "Surdell, {Daniel L.} and Sumon Bhattacharjee and Loftus, {Christopher M.}",
year = "2002",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1179/016164102101200122",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "24",
pages = "347--353",
journal = "Neurological Research",
issn = "0161-6412",
publisher = "Maney Publishing",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Pros, cons, and current indications of open craniotomy versus gamma knife in the treatment of arteriovenous malformations and the role of endovascular embolization.

AU - Surdell, Daniel L.

AU - Bhattacharjee, Sumon

AU - Loftus, Christopher M.

PY - 2002/6

Y1 - 2002/6

N2 - The successful treatment of an intracranial arteriovenous malformation poses both technical and conceptual problems to the neurosurgeon. Treatment decisions are made in light of current understanding of the natural history of these lesions. It is important to understand the pros, cons and current indication of open craniotomy vs. gamma knife in the treatment of arteriovenous malformations and the role of endovascular embolization. Surgical removal of an arteriovenous malformation is indicated when the operative risk is less than the morbidity and mortality associated with its natural history. The treatment goal of complete angiographic obliteration of arteriovenous malformations is achieved most effectively by microneurosurgery in low-grade lesions. Large lesions frequently require a combination of embolization and microsurgery. Although recent advances in technology and medical management have allowed previously inoperable arteriovenous malformations to be surgically excised, there is still a small group of arteriovenous malformations that cannot be excised safely due to their size and location. Stereotactic radiosurgery is clearly an important adjunct in the multimodality treatment approach for large arteriovenous malformations. Endovascular embolization can potentially increase safety and efficacy in the treatment of arteriovenous malformations when applied to selective cases with well-defined treatment goals.

AB - The successful treatment of an intracranial arteriovenous malformation poses both technical and conceptual problems to the neurosurgeon. Treatment decisions are made in light of current understanding of the natural history of these lesions. It is important to understand the pros, cons and current indication of open craniotomy vs. gamma knife in the treatment of arteriovenous malformations and the role of endovascular embolization. Surgical removal of an arteriovenous malformation is indicated when the operative risk is less than the morbidity and mortality associated with its natural history. The treatment goal of complete angiographic obliteration of arteriovenous malformations is achieved most effectively by microneurosurgery in low-grade lesions. Large lesions frequently require a combination of embolization and microsurgery. Although recent advances in technology and medical management have allowed previously inoperable arteriovenous malformations to be surgically excised, there is still a small group of arteriovenous malformations that cannot be excised safely due to their size and location. Stereotactic radiosurgery is clearly an important adjunct in the multimodality treatment approach for large arteriovenous malformations. Endovascular embolization can potentially increase safety and efficacy in the treatment of arteriovenous malformations when applied to selective cases with well-defined treatment goals.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036595895&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0036595895&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1179/016164102101200122

DO - 10.1179/016164102101200122

M3 - Review article

C2 - 12069280

AN - SCOPUS:0036595895

VL - 24

SP - 347

EP - 353

JO - Neurological Research

JF - Neurological Research

SN - 0161-6412

IS - 4

ER -