Concurrent meningioma and intracranial aneurysm: Insights from an updated systematic review and a case report

Résumé fourni par la source

Background: The concurrent presentation of meningioma and intracranial aneurysm (IA) poses diagnostic and therapeutic challenges, with no standardized management protocol available. This study aims to address this through an updated systematic review, delineating optimal strategies for managing this dual pathology. Methods: A systematic review was conducted across PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases. Articles were screened independently by two reviewers. Treatment strategies and patient outcomes were comprehensively analyzed to formulate a treatment framework based on several characteristics. In addition, one concurrent meningioma and IA case from our institution was presented. Results: A total of 69 articles comprising 115 patients were included in the study. The cohort exhibited a female predominance (80%) with a mean age of 56 (±13) years. Meningiomas were primarily localized to the frontotemporal and sellar regions, while aneurysms favored the anterior circulation - notably, 16.5% of cases presented with ruptured aneurysms. Management strategies varied based on the spatial relationship between lesions and aneurysm rupture status. In unruptured cases, 34% underwent a single craniotomy for simultaneous resection of both pathologies, while endovascular intervention was favored when the IA originated from an artery feeding the meningioma (73%). Remarkably, postoperative aneurysm rupture occurred in 33% of cases managed solely through tumor resection (range 0-30 days postop). Conclusion: This study proposes a comprehensive treatment algorithm to guide neurosurgeons in managing concurrent meningioma and IA cases. By considering individual patient intricacies, the feasibility of simultaneous management, aneurysm rupture risk, and symptomatology, this framework is a valuable tool for clinical decision-making in these complex scenarios.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.