Abstract Number ‐ 212: Endovascular vs. Open Surgery for Craniocervical Junction Dural Arteriovenous Fistulas: Assessing Safety and Efficacy

Abstract

Introduction Arteriovenous fistulas at the craniocervical junction (CCAVFs) are challenging to treat due to variation in angioarchitecture and shunting sites. No consensus exists as to whether open surgery or endovascular approaches are better in regards to outcomes, complications, and need for reintervention. As such, weexplore the efficacy, outcomes, and complications of endovascular versus open surgery for dural arteriovenous fistulas at the craniocervical junction. Methods A systematic review was performed using the EMBASE, PubMed,and Cochrane databases in April 2022. MeSH search terms included (craniocervical) AND (arteriovenous OR fistula OR AVF). Inclusion criteria were defined as patients with CCAVFs who were treated with open surgery or endovascular therapy with reported clinical outcomes at 6 months or later. Results A total of 357 studies were screened; of which 75 were included. A total of 416 patients (309 males, 91 females) were included with an average age of 61.9 years. A total of 236 patients underwent surgery (mean age: 61.5), 71 patients underwent embolization (mean age: 62.6), and 25 patients underwent a combination (mean age: 54.7). Outcomes were reported in 39 surgery cases (mean follow up time: 31.4 months), and 54 endovascular cases (mean follow up time: 24.2 months). Within the open surgery group 47 (57.3%) had complete symptom resolution, 23 (28%) had symptom improvement or stabilization, 11 (13.4%) permanent deficit, and 1 (1.2%) resulted in death. Within the endovascular group 26 (56.5%) had complete symptom resolution, 5 (10.9%) had symptom improvement or stabilization, 15 (32.6%) permanent deficit, and 0 (0%) resulted in death. Conclusions Open surgery and embolization yield comparable symptomatic improvement and stabilization. However, the rate of permanent deficits is higher withembolization, while mortality is higher with open surgery. Further studies are required to better associate these outcomes to baseline parameters including treatment decision making, size of the lesion, patient age, and co‐morbidities.