Jc 18.10.2012
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Jc 18.10.2012

on

  • 740 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
740
Views on SlideShare
412
Embed Views
328

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

2 Embeds 328

http://libguides.mq.edu.au 327
https://www.google.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Jc 18.10.2012 Presentation Transcript

  • 1. Paul P. Huang et al. “Long-term Outcomes After Staged-VolumeStereotactic Radiosurgery for Large Arteriovenous Malformations” Neurosurgery 71:632–644, September 2012 David Bervini JC, ASAM 18.10.2012
  • 2. PATIENTS AND METHODS
  • 3. ProspectiveCases series, not randomizedStrong radiosurgery protocol
  • 4. M 35y M 23ml (3)-4-5
  • 5. 23 ml = 23 cm3• 2.8 cm side cube • 3.5 cm diameter sphere LARGE?
  • 6. SM (3)-4-5 -> ELOQUENT AREAS LARGE: “radiosurgical definition”44% embolization before radiosurgery When? Selection bias Good recovery!
  • 7. • Only 12 underwent FU DSA Attrition bias• FU < 10y Long-term?
  • 8. Statistical Analysis KM curvesNo information about comparison between curves (Cox-Mantel log-rank test? Gehan- Breslow-Wilcoxon test? Peto modification?) No Cox regression analysis Statistical bias
  • 9. RESULTS
  • 10. TOT Occlusion rate 61% 29%
  • 11. Information bias
  • 12. 31%, in eloquent regions!
  • 13. P >> .05
  • 14. Number at risk after 5yrs?
  • 15. Seizure Control Neurological deficits 10 Pts before ttt 5 before ttt 6 stable 2 worsening3 transient increase (not related to heamorrhage) 1 improvedNo positive impact of No positive impact of treatment treatment
  • 16. Take away message + -Strict radiosurgery protocol Poor design respected for 13yrs Many bias Good economy of words Very poor statistical analysisGood organization of paper and powerGood relevance and accuracy of bibliography Distracting graphs (radiosurgery) Debatable resultsGood quality of illustrations
  • 17. This paper does not help me to understand the indications and advantages of fractioned radiosurgery for patients presenting with “large”, “symptomatic” AVMs.