Mustaqim Prasetya
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Mustaqim Prasetya has a total of 5 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Peter Adidharma
National Brain Center Hospital Prof. Dr. dr. Mahar Mardjono Jakarta, Jakarta, Indonesia
1 shared publication - Takanori Fukushima
Division of Neurosurgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, USA
1 shared publication - Takuro Inoue
Department of Neurosurgery, Subarukai Koto Memorial Hospital, Shiga, Japan
1 shared publication - Yasuaki Inoue
Department of Neurosurgery, Nadogaya Hospital, Chiba 277-0084, Japan
1 shared publication - Yukihiro Goto
Department of Neurosurgery, Koto Memorial Hospital, Shiga, Japan
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- 28 November 2023
- Published by Springer Nature in Acta Neurochirurgica
- Vol. 165 (12) , 3845-3852
Potential reasons for failure and recurrence in microvascular decompression for hemifacial spasm
Background To examine the factors contributing to persistent and recurrent hemifacial spasms (HFS) following a microvascular decompression (MVD) procedure and to suggest technical improvements to prevent such failures. Methods A retrospective review was conducted on fifty-two cases of repeat surgery. The extent of the previous craniotomy and the location of neurovascular compression (NVC) were investigated. The operative findings were categorized into two groups: “Missing Compression” and “Teflon Contact”. The analysis included long-term outcomes and operative complications after repeat MVD procedures. Results Missing compression was identified in 29 patients (56%), while Teflon contact was observed in 23 patients (44%). Patients with missing compression were more likely to experience improper craniotomy (66%) compared to those with Teflon contact (48%). Medially located NVC was a frequent finding in both groups, mainly due to compression by the anterior inferior cerebellar artery. In the missing compression group, during the repeat MVD, Teflon sling retraction was utilized in 79% of cases, while in the Teflon contact group, the most common procedure involved removing the Teflon in contact (65%). After the repeat MVD procedure, immediate spasm relief was achieved in 42 patients (81%), with six (12%) experiencing delayed relief. After a median follow-up of 54 months, 96% of patients were free from spasms. Delayed facial palsy, facial weakness, and hearing impairment were more frequently observed in the Teflon contact group. Conclusions A proper craniotomy that provides adequate exposure around the REZ is crucial to prevent missing the culprit vessel during the initial MVD procedure. Teflon contact on the REZ should be avoided, as it poses a potential risk of procedure failure and recurrence.
- 28 November 2023
- Published by Springer Nature in Acta Neurochirurgica
- Vol. 165 (12) , 3845-3852
Potential reasons for failure and recurrence in microvascular decompression for hemifacial spasm
Background To examine the factors contributing to persistent and recurrent hemifacial spasms (HFS) following a microvascular decompression (MVD) procedure and to suggest technical improvements to prevent such failures. Methods A retrospective review was conducted on fifty-two cases of repeat surgery. The extent of the previous craniotomy and the location of neurovascular compression (NVC) were investigated. The operative findings were categorized into two groups: “Missing Compression” and “Teflon Contact”. The analysis included long-term outcomes and operative complications after repeat MVD procedures. Results Missing compression was identified in 29 patients (56%), while Teflon contact was observed in 23 patients (44%). Patients with missing compression were more likely to experience improper craniotomy (66%) compared to those with Teflon contact (48%). Medially located NVC was a frequent finding in both groups, mainly due to compression by the anterior inferior cerebellar artery. In the missing compression group, during the repeat MVD, Teflon sling retraction was utilized in 79% of cases, while in the Teflon contact group, the most common procedure involved removing the Teflon in contact (65%). After the repeat MVD procedure, immediate spasm relief was achieved in 42 patients (81%), with six (12%) experiencing delayed relief. After a median follow-up of 54 months, 96% of patients were free from spasms. Delayed facial palsy, facial weakness, and hearing impairment were more frequently observed in the Teflon contact group. Conclusions A proper craniotomy that provides adequate exposure around the REZ is crucial to prevent missing the culprit vessel during the initial MVD procedure. Teflon contact on the REZ should be avoided, as it poses a potential risk of procedure failure and recurrence.