CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 100Vascular Malformations Diagnosis and TreatmentVascular Malformations and HemangiomasVascular Anomalies and Treatments

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Stereotactic Heavy-Charged-Particle Bragg Peak Radiosurgery for the Treatment of Intracranial Arteriovenous Malformations in Childhood and Adolescence

Levy, Richard P., Fabrikant, Jacob I., Frankel, Kenneth A., Phillips, Mark H., Lyman, John T.·1989·Neurosurgery
DOI 10.1227/00006123-198906000-00009
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Forty patients aged 6 to 18 years have now been treated for inoperable intracranial arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) using stereotactic heavy-charged-particle Bragg peak radiosurgery at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory 184-inch Synchrocyclotron at the University of California, Berkeley. This paper describes the procedures for selection of patients, the treatment protocol, and the neurological and neuroradiological responses to stereotactic radiosurgery in this age group. The volumes of the treated AVMs ranged from 265 mm3 to 60,000 mm3. The results are favorable: thus far, 20 of 25 patients have experienced greater than or equal to 50% obliteration of their AVMs within 1 year after treatment, and 14 of 18 patients have experienced total obliteration of the AVM by 2 years after treatment. Two patients hemorrhaged from radiosurgically treated AVMs within 12 months after treatment, but none thereafter. Complications include vasogenic edema and arterial occlusion; three patients have had neurological worsening as definite or possible sequelae of treatment. The strengths and limitations of the method are discussed.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1227/00006123-198906000-00009

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Ionizing radiation can damage the CNS, causing changes to cognitive function, inducing fatigue, and generating performance decrements.

    “Ionizing radiation can damage the CNS, causing changes to cognitive function, inducing fatigue, and generating performance decrements [2,30,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51].”

    From Space Radiation: The number one risk to astronaut health beyond low earth orbit (2014) · cites this paper as [47]

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Levy, R. P., Fabrikant, J. I., Frankel, K. A., Phillips, M. H., & Lyman, J. T.
Affiliations
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (US)
Venue
Neurosurgery
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
1989-06-01
Volume
24
Issue
6
Pages
841-852
ISSN
  • 0148-396X (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4040
DOI
10.1227/00006123-198906000-00009
OpenAlex
W1998873528
Cited by
98
References
0
Citations by year
2024: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2014: 3 · 2012: 3
FWCI
8.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Neurosurgery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Clinical Neurology › Vascular Malformations Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Vascular Malformations and Hemangiomas
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Genetics (clinical) › Vascular Anomalies and Treatments
Keywords
intracranial arteriovenous malformations, stereotactic radiosurgery, pediatric patients, adolescents, AVM obliteration, vasogenic edema, arterial occlusion, treatment complications
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Intracranial Arteriovenous Malformations, Cerebral Hemorrhage, Child, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Helium, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Prospective Studies, Radioisotopes, Radiotherapy Dosage, Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted, Stereotaxic Techniques

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review