4.1 Article

Y-Stenting Endovascular Treatment for Ruptured Intracranial Aneurysms: A Single-Institution Experience in Korea

Journal

JOURNAL OF KOREAN NEUROSURGICAL SOCIETY
Volume 52, Issue 3, Pages 187-192

Publisher

KOREAN NEUROSURGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.3340/jkns.2012.52.3.187

Keywords

Intervention; Stent; Subarachnoid hemorrhage

Funding

  1. Dankook University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective : Stent-assisted coiling on intracranial aneurysm has been considered as an effective technique and has made the complex aneurysms amenable to coiling. To achieve reconstruction of intracranial vessels with preservation of parent artery the use of stents has the greatest potential for assisted coiling. We report the results of our experiences in ruptured wide-necked intracranial aneurysms using Y-stent coiling. Methods : From October 2003 to October 2011, 12 patients (3 men, 9 women; mean age, 62.6) harboring 12 complex ruptured aneurysms (3 middle cerebral artery, 9 basilar tip) were treated by Y-stent coiling by using self-expandable intracranial stents. Procedural complications, clinical outcome, and initial and midterm angiographic results were evaluated. The definition of broad-necked aneurysm s neck diameter over than 4 mm or an aneurysm with a neck diameter smaller than 4 mm in which the dome/neck ratio was less than 2. Result : In all patients, the aneurysm was successfully occluded with no apparent procedure-related complication. There was no evidence of thromboembolic complication, arterial dissection and spasm during procedure. Follow-up studies showed stable and complete occlusion of the aneurism in all patients with no neurologic deficits. Conclusion : The present study did show that the Y-stent coiling seemed to facilitate endovascular treatment of ruptured wide-necked intracranial aneurysms. More clinical data with longer follow-up are needed to establish the role of Y-stent coiling in ruptured aneurysms.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available