4.5 Article

Surgical Clipping of Previously Ruptured, Coiled Aneurysms: Outcome Assessment in 53 Patients

Journal

WORLD NEUROSURGERY
Volume 120, Issue -, Pages E203-E211

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.07.293

Keywords

Cerebral aneurysm; Clipping; Outcomes; Previously coiled; Previously ruptured; Recurrent; Residual

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: Occasionally, previously coiled aneurysms will require secondary treatment with surgical clipping, representing a more complicated aneurysm to treat than the naive aneurysm. Patients who initially presented with a ruptured aneurysm may pose an even riskier group to treat than those with unruptured previously coiled aneurysms, given their potentially higher risk for rerupture. The objective of this study was to assess the clinical outcomes of patients who undergo microsurgical clipping of ruptured previously coiled cerebral aneurysms. In addition, we present a thorough review of the literature. METHODS: A total of 53 patients from a single institution who initially presented with a subarachnoid hemorrhage and underwent surgical clipping of a previously coiled aneurysm between December 1997 and December 2014 were studied. Clinical features, hospital course, and pre-operative and most recent functional status (Glasgow Outcome Scale score) were reviewed retrospectively. RESULTS: The mean time interval from coiling to clipping was 2.6 years, and mean follow-up was 5.5 years (range, 0.1-14.7 years). Five patients (9.8%) presented with rebleed prior to clipping. Most patients (79.3%, 42/53) experienced good neurologic outcomes. Most showed no change (81%, 43/53) or improvement {13%, 7/53) in functional status after microsurgical clipping. One patient (2%) deteriorated clinically, and there were 2 mortalities (4%). CONCLUSIONS: Microsurgical clipping of previously ruptured, coiled aneurysms is a promising treatment method with favorable clinical outcomes.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available