Embolic Material Migration as the Predominant Contributing Factor to Prognostic Deterioration Following Combined Tumor Resection and Preoperative Embolization

Ryosuke Suzuki; Taisuke Akimoto; Shigeta Miyake; Yu Iida; Wataru Shimohigoshi; Yasunobu Nakai; Nobuyuki Shimizu; Katsumi Sakata; Tetsuya Yamamoto

doi:10.7759/cureus.57315

Embolic Material Migration as the Predominant Contributing Factor to Prognostic Deterioration Following Combined Tumor Resection and Preoperative Embolization

Cureus. 2024 Mar 31;16(3):e57315. doi: 10.7759/cureus.57315. eCollection 2024 Mar.

Authors

Ryosuke Suzuki¹, Taisuke Akimoto¹, Shigeta Miyake², Yu Iida¹, Wataru Shimohigoshi³, Yasunobu Nakai¹, Nobuyuki Shimizu¹, Katsumi Sakata³, Tetsuya Yamamoto¹

Affiliations

¹ Department of Neurosurgery, Yokohama City University Graduate School of Medicine, Yokohama, JPN.
² Department of Neurosurgery, Yokohama Brain and Spine Center, Yokohama, JPN.
³ Department of Neurosurgery, Yokohama City University Medical Center, Yokohama, JPN.

Abstract

Introduction Preoperative embolization can potentially facilitate surgical resection of challenging tumors in the intracranial and facial regions; however, its clinical efficacy remains controversial, mainly due to potential morbidity risks. We explored negative factors of the combined treatment of preoperative embolization and tumor resection that affect neurological prognosis. Method This retrospective study used clinical data from 132 consecutive tumors that underwent combined treatment at multiple facilities between January 2016 and May 2021. Basic patient information, tumor characteristics, and treatment details were assessed to identify predictors of deterioration as measured using the modified Rankin scale (mRS) score at three months post-treatment. Results Among the 126 eligible combined treatments, a deterioration in the postoperative mRS score was observed in 19/126 (15.1%). Complications related to embolization and tumor resection occurred in 8/126 (6.3%) and 19/125 (15.2%) of procedures, respectively. Multivariate analyses indicated significant associations between migration of embolic material (adjusted odds ratio 13.80; 95% confidence interval 1.25-152.52; p=0.03), elevated intraoperative blood loss (p=0.04), and deterioration of postoperative mRS score. Embolic material migration was identified as the primary prognostic factor for the deterioration of score. An analysis of 192 procedures, excluding those that exclusively used coils, identified embolization targeting the accessory meningeal artery (p=0.046) and the third segment of the internal maxillary artery (p=0.03) as a risk factor for embolic material migration. Conclusions Embolic material migration is the predominant factor associated with declining neurological outcome that persists into the chronic phase after combined treatment. Given that preoperative embolization is a supplementary treatment option, a thorough understanding of vascular anatomy and striving safe procedure are critical.

Keywords: complication; embolic material migration; intracranial tumor; preoperative embolization; tumor resection.