Abstract:
OBJECTIVE\nThe study objective was to compare the efficacy and safety of supraorbital eyebrow (SEA) and pterional (PA) approaches in surgery of anterior circle of Willis (ACW) aneurysms and to determine the advantages and disadvantages of SEA in aneurysm clipping.\n\n\nMATERIAL AND METHODS\nThe analysis included 166 patients with ACW aneurysms aged 18 to 70 years who were treated in the Neurosurgery Department of the Interregional Clinical Diagnostic Center (Kazan) in the period from 2013 to 2016. At the first stage of the study, factors affecting surgical outcomes were compared (by using the Glasgow outcome scale (GOS)) in subpopulations of patients operated on using SEA (n=49) and PA (n=117). At the second stage, we compared the efficacy and safety of approaches using a case-control subanalysis in appropriate subgroups of the SEA (n=37) and PA (n=37) groups. The subgroups were comparable in the following factors: gender, age, severity of subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) on (Fisher scale), severity of the patient s condition (Hunt-Hess scale), size and location of the aneurysm, surgery duration, intraoperative aneurysm rupture (IOAR), amount of blood loss, rate of frontal sinus surgery, rate of nasal CSF leak, rate of intraoperative and postoperative complications, hemorrhagic and ischemic complications according to postoperative CT, patient s satisfaction with the cosmetic result of surgery (visual analogue scale - VAS), and treatment outcomes (GOS). Treatment outcomes (GOS) and patient s satisfaction with the cosmetic result of surgery (VAS) were considered as the efficacy parameters. The safety parameters included the amount of blood loss, rate of frontal sinus surgery, rate of nasal CSF leak, and rate of intraoperative and postoperative (hemorrhagic and ischemic) complications.\n\n\nRESULTS\nAt the first stage of the study, we found that the amount of intraoperative blood loss in the subpopulation of patients with ACW aneurysms who were operated on using SEA was statistically significantly less than that in the PA group (p=0.0000002). In the postoperative period, patients who underwent surgery using SEA less frequently experienced neurological deficit (p=0.003), less frequently developed first epileptic seizures (p=0.035), and had a lower rate of hemorrhagic complications (p=0.003) and better treatment outcomes (GOS) (p=0.01). Comparison of appropriate subgroups in the SEA and PA groups, which were selected according to the case-control methodology and were comparable in the main factors affecting treatment outcomes, confirmed statistically significantly lower blood loss for SEA (p=0.0000002) than for PA. Compared to the SEA group, the PA group was characterized by more frequent, but not statistically significantly different, IOAR (p=1), postoperative worsening of neurological deficit (p=0.115), newly developed epileptic seizures (p=0.493), and hemorrhagic complications (p=0.0557). There were no deaths in both groups. In the SEA group, the treatment outcome was scored 4 and 5 (GOS, favorable outcome); in the PA group, the treatment outcome was scored 3 (GOS) in 2 (5.4%) patients and 4 or 5 in 35 (94.6%) patients (p=0.063). The mean subjective score of satisfaction with the treatment result (VAS) in the SEA group was significantly higher (9.4±1) than in the PA group (8.8±1; p=0.01).\n\n\nCONCLUSION\nSEA is an adequate approach for clipping ACW aneurysms, in particular ACA-AComA and MCA aneurysms, which is as effective and safe as the pterional approach.
