Multiple synchronous spinal dural arteriovenous fistulas: A systematic literature review

Yusuke Ikeuchi; Atsushi Fujita; Masaaki Kohta; Shunsuke Yamanishi; Kazuhiro Tanaka; Takashi Sasayama

doi:10.1101/2023.08.21.23294395

ABSTRACT

Background Multiple spinal dural arteriovenous fistulas (SDAVFs) are rare and account for only 1–2% of all SDAVF cases. The treatment for SDAVFs typically involves either direct surgy or endovascular treatment. Identifying the precise location of all fistulas is paramount for successful treatment procedures when multiple SDAVFs are present. They can be classified as synchronous (occurring simultaneously) or metachronous (occurring at different times), with each type differing with respect to etiology, diagnosis, and treatment. This study systematically reviewed the literature on multiple synchronous SDAVFs.

Methods A comprehensive search was performed to identify all published multiple synchronous SDAVF cases. Overall, 23 patients with multiple SDAVFs were identified, including 21 from 19 articles and 2 from this study. Clinical presentation, lesion location, radiographic features, surgical treatment, and outcome were analyzed in each patient.

Results All patients in this study were male individuals, and the duration from symptom onset to diagnosis in many of these patients was longer than that previously reported. Previous studies suggested that multiple SDAVFs typically occurred within three of fewer vertebral levels. However, >50% of examined patients had remote lesions separated by more than three vertebral levels. Patients with remote lesions had a significantly worse outcome (1/7 vs. 8/11, P=0.049). Therefore, accurate localization of fistulas before spinal angiography is critical for managing multiple remote SDAVFs.

Conclusions Considering the possibility of multiple remote SDAVFs, careful interpretation of imaging findings is essential for accurate diagnosis and appropriate treatment planning.

KEY MESSAGES What is already known on this topic

Multiple spinal dural arteriovenous fistulas (SDAVFs) can be classified as synchronous (occurring simultaneously) or metachronous (occurring at different times), and they differ in etiology, diagnosis, and treatment. However, the differences between two conditions need to be better clarified.

What this study adds

Patients with remote SDAVFs tended to receive more treatments and had worse prognosis than those with non-remote SDAVFs. Therefore, correct localization of fistulas before spinal angiography is essential for managing multiple remote SDAVFs.

How this study might affect research, practice or policy

Multiple remote SDAVFs may occur in patients; therefore, careful interpretation of imaging results is critical for accurate diagnosis and appropriate treatment planning.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest concerning the materials or methods used in this study or the findings specified in this paper.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Kobe University Hospital (approval number: #B230090).

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

Data availability statement

This review was not registered and the review protocol was not prepared. All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this article.