Evidence Hub

Microsurgery for basilar apex aneurysms: a case series

José Luis Acha Sánchez, Jhon E. Bocanegra-Becerra, Luis Contreras Montenegro, Manuel Cueva, Adriana Bellido, S. Contreras, Oscar Santos

Journal of Surgical Case Reports, 2024

Abstract

Abstract Although endovascular management has been increasingly adopted for basilar apex aneurysms (BAAs), microsurgery still represents an amenable treatment option. In this case series, six female patients (median age: 46 years) with six saccular high-riding BAAs (50% ruptured) were included. The median neck size was 5.3 mm (range: 2.9–7.9), and the median length from base to dome was 7.25 mm (range: 5.2–11.4). Preoperative complications included hydrocephalus (22%) and rebleeding (22%). All patients underwent clipping with a pterional craniotomy with extension into the temporal bone base. Intraoperative aneurysm rupture occurred in one patient (17%). Postoperative complications occurred in two patients (34%), of which one died because of extensive cerebral vasospasm and hospital-acquired pneumonia. At the 6-month follow-up, all remaining patients had modified Rankin scale scores ≤ 2. Microsurgery remains a viable option for BAAs in limited-resource settings. Technical success depends on delicate tissue work, in-depth anatomical knowledge, and maneuverability in narrow corridors.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free