Efficacy and safety of stereotactic radiosurgery versus endovascular treatment for symptomatic cavernous sinus dural arteriovenous fistula without ophthalmological emergency: a single-center 10-year experience

Abstract

OBJECTIVE Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is emerging as a treatment option for cavernous sinus dural arteriovenous fistula (CS dAVF); it is less invasive and has a lower complication rate than conventional surgeries. However, little is known regarding the advantages and limitations of SRS compared to those of endovascular treatment (EVT). The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety between EVT and SRS for treatment of CS dAVF. METHODS Between January 2011 and April 2021, a total of 86 consecutive patients diagnosed with CS dAVF were treated with EVT or SRS. Among them, 8 patients with ophthalmological emergency and 8 without follow-up data at ≥ 12 months were excluded. During the same period, no neurological deficit due to intracranial hemorrhage or seizure was noted in any of the patients. Ultimately, 70 patients (EVT 33, SRS 37) were included in this study. Demographic characteristics, initial clinical presentations, clinical outcomes, and radiological findings were retrospectively reviewed and compared. Procedure-related complications were also assessed after the treatments. RESULTS The patients’ baseline characteristics (except conjunctival symptoms) and angiographic features of CS dAVF were not significantly different between the EVT and SRS groups. Conjunctival symptoms were more frequently noted in the EVT than in the SRS group (69.7% vs 40.5%, p = 0.015). After EVT, initial complete obliteration was achieved in 20 cases (60.6%). Complete obliteration was achieved at 6 months in 86.4% of cases with EVT and in 77.8% of those treated with SRS (p = 0.507), and at 12 months in 86.4% cases with EVT and in 94.4% of those treated with SRS (p = 0.357). Worsening of symptoms developed at 1 month in 24.2% of cases with EVT and in 5.4% of those treated with SRS (p = 0.038); at 6 months in 22.6% of cases with EVT and in 10.8% of those treated with SRS; and at 12 months in 30.0% of cases with EVT and in 13.5% of those treated with SRS (p = 0.099). The angioarchitecture of CS dAVF did not affect angiographic obliteration after SRS. Procedure-related morbidity and mortality occurred more frequently in the EVT than in the SRS group (27.3% vs 8.1%, p = 0.034). CONCLUSIONS Both EVT and SRS were effective for the treatment of CS dAVF without ophthalmological emergency. However, procedure-related morbidity and mortality was less frequent in SRS than in EVT, and consequently SRS may be more advantageous in terms of safety.