4.5 Article

Clinical characteristics and endovascular treatment in patients with intracranial giant serpentine aneurysms

Journal

QUANTITATIVE IMAGING IN MEDICINE AND SURGERY
Volume 11, Issue 4, Pages 1490-1495

Publisher

AME PUBL CO
DOI: 10.21037/qims-20-698

Keywords

Endovascular treatment; serpentine aneurysm; parent artery occlusion

Funding

  1. Wu Jieping Medical Foundation [320.6750.19092-23]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study retrospectively analyzed the clinical outcomes of endovascular parent artery occlusion for intracranial GSAs, showing that this method is safe and effective with all patients recovering well.
Background: Giant serpentine aneurysms (GSAs) are a rare subtype of intracranial aneurysm. Recently, GSAs have been successfully treated with endovascular parent artery occlusion with or without distal bypass. The present study retrospectively analyzed the clinical outcomes of endovascular parent artery occlusion for intracranial GSAs. Methods: Medical records and cerebral angiograms from our endovascular center were retrospectively analyzed. Twenty-two patients with serpentine aneurysms were treated with endovascular occlusion of the parent artery at the site of the aneurysm. These patients had selective treatment. Clinical and angiographic outcomes of the patients were assessed between the 3-month to 3-year stage. Results: The clinical manifestations of GSA included headache, hemiparesis, SAH, epilepsy, memory loss, right oculomotor palsy, and intracerebral hemorrhage. No cerebral infarction occurred. The average Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) score was 5. There were no clinical complications and none of the patients had recurrence after selective embolization. All of the patients recovered well, and no recurrence or rebleeding was noted at the follow-up. Conclusions: Endovascular parent artery occlusion may be a safe and effective way to treat intracranial GSAs.

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