Prognostic value of the Spetzler's grading system in a series of cerebral AVMs treated by a combined management
- 55 Downloads
The prognostic value of the Spetzler's grading system is studied in a series of 52 AVMs treated by a combined management, using one or several of the 3 available techniques: surgical resection, endovascular embolization, radiosurgery.
The symptoms at the time of treatment were haemorrhage 50%, seizures 31%, headache and deficit 19%. Three grade groups were considered: I and II (31%), III (33%), IV and V (36%). Overall, AVMs were managed as follows: resection alone 25%, embolization plus resection 23%, embolization alone 23%, radiosurgery with various combinations 29%. According to the grade groups, the most frequently used technique was resection alone for grade I–II AVMs (44%), radiosurgery for grade III AVMs (41%) and embolization alone for grade IV–V AVMs (42%).
The clinical outcome was evaluated in terms of deterioration due to treatment. The best results were obtained in grade I–II AVMs (81% with no deterioration) then in grade III AVMs (65%) and in grade IV–V (58%). However, when we consider the outcome in terms of favourable results (no or only minor deterioration) we obtained a similar outcome for grade I–II and grade III AVMs (94% each), and only 79% for grade IV–V malformations. The angiographic outcome showed a better eradication rate in grade III AVMs (88% complete eradication), than in grade I–II AVMs (75%) and in grade IV–V (47%).
Our conclusion is that the Spetzler's grading system in this series was well correlated with both the clinical and the angiographic outcome. However, we found no real difference between grade I–II and grade III AVMs. So, in terms of prognostic value, the grade I, II, and III AVMs could be considered together as low-grade malformations, with a better prognosis than the high-grade malformations (grade IV and V).
KeywordsArteriovenous malformations endovascular embolization radiosurgery grading of AVMs
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.Drake CG (1978) Cerebral arteriovenous malformations. Consideration for and experience with surgical treatment in 166 cases. Clin Neurosurg 26: 145–208Google Scholar
- 3.Dobbelaere P, Jomin M, Clarisse E (1979) IntérÊt pronostique de l'étude du drainage veineux des anevrysmes artérioveineux cérébraux. Neurochirugie 25: 178–184Google Scholar
- 6.Hollerhage HG, Dewenter KM, Dietz H (1992) Grading of supratentorial arteriovenous malformations on the basis of multivariate analysis of prognostic factors. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 117: 129–134Google Scholar
- 10.Mingrino S (1978) Supratentorial AVMs of the brain. In: Krayenbühl Het al (eds) Advances and technical standards in neurosurgery, Vol 5. Springer, Wien New York, pp93–126Google Scholar
- 13.Pelletieri L, Carlsson CA, Grevstens, Norlen G, Uhlemann C (1980) Surgical versus conservative treatment of intracranial arteriovenous malformations. A study in surgical decision making. Acta Neurochir (Wien) [Suppl] 29: 1–86Google Scholar
- 14.Pertuiset B, Ancri D, Kinuta Y, Haisa T, Bordi L, Lin C, Mahdi M, Arthuis F (1991) Classification of supratentorial arteriovenous malformations. A score system for evaluation of operability and surgical strategy. Based on an analysis of 66 cases. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 110: 6–16Google Scholar
- 17.Spetzler RF, Zabramski JM (1989) Grading and staged resection of cerebral AVMs. Clin Neurosurg 36: 318–337Google Scholar
- 20.Yasargil MG (1987) AVMs of the brain, history, embryology, pathological considerations, hemodynamics, diagnostic studies, microsurgical anatomy, Vol 3A. Thieme, Stuttgart, 408 ppGoogle Scholar