Comparing Postoperative Stroke Incidence in Moyamoya Disease: Single-Barrel versus Double-Barrel STA-MCA Bypass—A Meta-analysis

Background: Moyamoya disease (MMD) involves progressive stenosis of intracranial arteries and compensatory collateral vessel formation. While the single-barrel STA-MCA bypass remains a cornerstone treatment, modifications such as the double-barrel bypass offer potential advantages via higher postoperative flow and draw, although a longer operative time is also required. Currently, there is a lack of consensus regarding the impact of double-barrel bypass techniques on the incidence of postoperative stroke after direct bypass for adult and pediatric patients with MMD.

Methods: We performed a PRISMA-compliant systematic review of MEDLINE and Embase from inception through March 2024. A supplemental bibliography review in Google Scholar was also performed to screen for additional candidate citations not captured by the primary screen. Among 62 candidate citations, 16 underwent full-text review, and 5 met study criteria and were included in a meta-analysis of proportions using random-effects modeling. The supplemental screen yielded two candidate citations that were ultimately included in the meta-analysis.

Results: The pooled odds ratio (OR) for postoperative stroke after single-barrel bypass as compared to double-barrel bypass was 1.19 (95% CI = 0.3–4.73). Studies reported either median or mean follow up times. Mean follow-up time was 20.2 months (range, 7–190) based on data from two studies reporting mean follow-up times and two studies reporting median follow-up times. One study did not report follow up time. Inter-study heterogeneity was minimal (I ² = 0%). In order to assess for latent confounding factors due to the inclusion of mixed study populations that were majority MMD, a supplemental sensitivity analysis was performed excluding Takanari et al (2015) and Cherian et al (2018). This yielded a pooled OR of 1.12 (95% CI = 0.23–5.46), validating the findings of the primary analysis. A second sensitivity analysis excluding studies with mean or median follow-up times less than 12 months yielded similar results (OR: 1.16 (95% CI = 0.05–27.97). Funnel plots and Egger’s test were negative for publication bias.

Conclusion: We report a novel meta-analysis comparing single-barrel and double-barrel techniques for direct extracranial–intracranial bypass for the treatment of MMD. Double-barrel techniques do not appear to provide additional postoperative stroke protection; however, given the relatively limited follow-up times, these results may under-represent the long-term benefits of a double-barrel bypass technique. Well-controlled long-term studies are needed to better interrogate the optimal treatment strategies for this vulnerable patient population.

 

Scroll to top

No conflict of interest has been declared by the author(s).

Publication History

Article published online:
07 February 2025