4.6 Article

Mid-term Results of Endovascular Coiling of Wide-Necked Aneurysms Using Double Stents in a Y Configuration

Journal

NEUROSURGERY
Volume 69, Issue 2, Pages 421-429

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1227/NEU.0b013e318214abbd

Keywords

Cerebral aneurysm; Embolization; Neuroform; Wide-necked aneurysm; Y stent

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: Double stenting in a Y configuration may be used to treat a subset of wide-necked aneurysms not amenable to reconstruction with a single stent. OBJECTIVE: We studied the feasibility, safety, and mid-term angiographic outcome of patients treated using this technique. METHODS: A retrospective review was undertaken of all coil embolizations of wide-necked aneurysms using double stents in a Y configuration. RESULTS: Nineteen patients were identified from 2002 to 2010 (14 women, 5 men) with a mean age of 57.4 years. Stents were deployed in a Y configuration achieving complete occlusion (5/19), residual neck (5/19), and residual aneurysm filling (9/19). Angiographic follow-up was available for a mean of 16 months, and clinical follow up was available for a mean of 21.4 months. The incidence of complications at the initial treatment was 6 of 19 (31.6%), and delayed thromboembolic complications occurred in 2 of 19 (10.5%). An angiographic neck recurrence requiring retreatment developed in only 1 of the patients in whom complete occlusion was obtained with the initial treatment. Spontaneous thrombosis and complete occlusion on follow-up imaging were found in 6 patients in whom initial neck or aneurysm filling was observed. Ultimately, 12 of the aneurysms (63.2%) were completely occluded on follow-up angiography. CONCLUSION: Y-stent reconstruction enables the endovascular management of otherwise complex, wide-necked cerebral aneurysms and can be performed safely in experienced hands with satisfactory mid-term results, even in cases requiring retreatment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available