首页> 外文期刊>Acta Neurochirurgica >Comparison of clinical and radiologic outcomes among stent-assisted, double-catheter, and balloon-assisted coil embolization of wide neck aneurysms
【24h】

Comparison of clinical and radiologic outcomes among stent-assisted, double-catheter, and balloon-assisted coil embolization of wide neck aneurysms

机译:支架,双导管和球囊辅助线圈栓塞术治疗宽颈动脉瘤的临床和影像学结果比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Background: Endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms can be technically challenging in cases of wide necks or unfavorable dome-to-neck ratio. Coils deployed without supporting devices may herniate from the aneurysm sac into the parent artery, causing thromboembolic complications or vessel occlusion. Therefore, alternative strategies for managing wide-necked aneurysms have been introduced such as stent-assisted coil embolization (SAC), balloon-assisted coil embolization (BAC), and double-catheter coil embolization (DCC). Methods: SAC, BAC, or DCC were used to treat 201 patients with 207 wide-neck aneurysms between 2008 and 2013. Initial occlusion rates, recanalization rates, and periprocedural complications were retrospectively evaluated. The mean follow-up periods for SAC, BAC, and DCC were 16.2 months, 11.6 months, and 14.3 months, respectively. Results: Clinical and anatomical analyses were conducted in 201 patients with 207 anuerysms. Complete occlusion rates of SAC, DCC, and BAC were 63.8 %, 46.7 %, and 63.2 %, respectively, and incomplete occlusion rates were 13.4 %, 15.5 %, 10.5 %, respectively (p value=0.798). No rebleeding or hemorrhage occurred after coil embolization. Recanalization rates did not differ among the SAC, DCC, and BAC groups (7.1 % vs. 11.1 % vs. 7.9 %, p value=0.696). Statistically insignificant results were observed in the rate of periprocedural complications among SAC, DCC, and BAC (11.0 % vs. 13.3 % vs. 15.8 %, p value=0.578). Conclusions: There were no significant differences in the recurrence rate and periprocedural complication rate, and no rebleeding or aneurysmal rupture after treatment. Sufficient occlusion rates were achieved with SAC, DCC, and BAC. Notably, DCC does not require the use of antiplatelet agents and achieves coil stability without compromising the parent artery or major branch. Thus, we believe that the double-catheter technique was found to be a feasible and safe treatment modality for branching wide-neck aneurysms.
机译:背景:颅内动脉瘤的血管内治疗在颈部宽大或穹顶颈比不利的情况下可能具有技术挑战。在没有支撑装置的情况下展开的线圈可能会从动脉瘤囊中突入母动脉,从而导致血栓栓塞性并发症或血管闭塞。因此,已经引入了用于治疗宽颈动脉瘤的替代策略,例如支架辅助线圈栓塞(SAC),球囊辅助线圈栓塞(BAC)和双导管线圈栓塞(DCC)。方法:使用SAC,BAC或DCC治疗2008年至2013年间201例207例宽颈动脉瘤患者。回顾性评估初始阻塞率,再通率和围手术期并发症。 SAC,BAC和DCC的平均随访时间分别为16.2个月,11.6个月和14.3个月。结果:对201例207例患者进行了临床和解剖学分析。 SAC,DCC和BAC的完全阻塞率分别为63.8%,46.7%和63.2%,不完全阻塞率分别为13.4%,15.5%,10.5%(p值= 0.798)。线圈栓塞后未发生再出血或出血。 SAC,DCC和BAC组之间的再通率没有差异(7.1%vs. 11.1%vs. 7.9%,p值= 0.696)。 SAC,DCC和BAC的围手术期并发症发生率在统计学上无统计学意义(11.0%vs. 13.3%vs. 15.8%,p值= 0.578)。结论:复发率和围手术期并发症发生率无明显差异,治疗后无再出血或动脉瘤破裂。使用SAC,DCC和BAC可以达到足够的阻塞率。值得注意的是,DCC不需要使用抗血小板药,并且可以在不损害亲代动脉或主要分支的情况下实现线圈的稳定性。因此,我们认为双导管技术被认为是分支宽颈动脉瘤的一种可行且安全的治疗方式。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号