4.2 Article

Influence of coil thickness on packing, re-opening and retreatment of intracranial aneurysms: a comparative study between two types of coils

Journal

NEUROLOGICAL RESEARCH
Volume 27, Issue -, Pages S116-S119

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1179/016164105X49292

Keywords

intracranial aneurysm; endovascular therapy; detachable coils; aneurysm volume; packing; re-opening; comparative studies

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To compare packing, re-opening and retreatment of intracranial aneurysms treated with two types of rent wire ckness and different shapes. Materials and methods: Packing, defined as the ratio between volume of inserted coils and volume of aneurysm, was calculated for 235 aneurysms-120 treated with predominant,helical-shaped coils of 0.010-inch diameter wire (GDC 10) and 115 treated with predominantly complex shaped coils of 0.012-inch diameter wire (Cordis TruFill). Aneurysm packing, reopening and retreatment during follow-up were compared for aneurysms treated with either type of coils. Results: Mean packing was significantly higher (absolute value 6.8%, relative value 23.0%, p < 0.0001) in aneurysms treated with Cordis TruFill coils compared with aneurysms coiled with GDC 10 coils. Six month follow-up angiography was available in 194 of 235 aneurysms. Reopening occurred in 22 of 99 aneurysms (22.2%) treated with GDC 10 coils and in 15 of 95 aneurysms (15.8%) treated with Cordis TruFill coils. Retreatment was performed in 16 of 120 aneurysms (13.3%) treated with GDC 10 coils and in nine of 115 aneurysms (7.8%) treated with Cordis TruFill coils. Conclusion: Coiling of intracranial aneurysms using complex shaped Cordis TruFill coils with a wire diameter of 0.012 inch results in significantly better packing compared with helical GDC 10 coils of 0.010-inch diameter wire. The retreatment rate was lower for aneurysms treated with Cordis TruFill coils compared with aneurysms treated with GDC 10 coils.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available