A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1075
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3195
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Prognostic analysis of posterior fossa decompression with or without cerebellar tonsillectomy for Chiari malformation type I: a multicenter retrospective study. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the prognosis of patients with Chiari malformation type I (CM-I) treated with posterior fossa decompression with duraplasty (PFDD) and posterior fossa decompression with resection of tonsils (PFDRT).

Methods: The clinical data of patients with CM-I treated using these two procedures in three medical centers between January 2016 and June 2021 were retrospectively analyzed and divided into PFDD and PFDRT groups according to the procedures. The Chicago Chiari Outcome Scale (CCOS) was used to score the patients and compare the prognosis of the two groups.

Results: A total of 125 patients with CM-I were included, of whom 90 (72.0%) were in the PFDD group, and 35 (28.0%) were in the PFDRT group. There was no significant difference in the overall essential characteristics of the two groups. Moreover, there was no significant difference in complication rates (3.3% vs 8.6%, p = 0.348), CCOS scores (13.5 ± 1.59 vs 14.0 ± 1.21, p = 0.111), and the probability of poor prognosis (25.6% vs 11.4%, p = 0.096) between the two groups. Nevertheless, a subgroup of patients who had CM-I combined with syringomyelia (SM) revealed higher CCOS scores (13.91 ± 1.12 vs 12.70 ± 1.64, p = 0.002) and a lower probability of poor prognosis (13.0% vs 40.4%, p = 0.028) in the PFDRT than in the PFDD group. Also, SM relief was more significant in patients in the PFDRT compared to the PFDD group. A logistic multifactor regression analysis of poor prognosis in patients with CM-I and SM showed that the PFDRT surgical approach was a protective factor compared to PFDD. Furthermore, by CCOS analysis, it was found that the main advantage of PFDRT in treating patients with CM-I and SM was to improve patients' nonpain and functionality scores.

Conclusions: Compared with PFDD, PFDRT is associated with a better prognosis for patients with CM-I and SM and is a protective factor for poor prognosis. Therefore, the authors suggest that PFDRT may be considered for patients with CM-I and SM.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.3171/2022.12.FOCUS22626DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

patients cm-i
28
poor prognosis
16
posterior fossa
12
fossa decompression
12
prognosis patients
12
pfdd group
12
compared pfdd
12
patients
10
chiari malformation
8
malformation type
8

Similar Publications