4.3 Review

The SILK flow diverter in the treatment of intracranial aneurysms

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCE
卷 21, 期 2, 页码 203-206

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jocn.2013.07.006

关键词

Aneurysm occlusion; Endovascular treatment; Intracranial aneurysms; SILK flow diverter

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The SILK flow diverter (SFID: Bait Extrusion, Montmorency, France) is a flow diverting stent used in the endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms. It works on the principle of redirecting flow away from the aneurysm sac, leading to occlusion over time. We present a systematic review on the clinical outcomes and complications of the SFD. A literature search for English language articles were conducted on PubMed, Medline and EMBASE for articles on the treatment of intracranial aneurysms with the SILK flow diverter. The inclusion criteria were n > 10, use of SFD only, data on complications and aneurysm occlusion rate (AOR). Eight studies with 285 patients and 317 intracranial aneurysms were included. The mean age was 52.7 years and nearly 80% were women. In terms of angiographic distribution, 86.8% of aneurysms were located in the anterior circulation and 13.2% in the posterior circulation. As for the aneurysm size, 37.9% were classed as small, 44.4% as large and 17.7% as giant. Ischemic complications and parent artery occlusion each occurred in 10% of patients. Aneurysm rupture rate was 3.5%, while the cumulative mortality was 4.9%. The main outcome measure, 12 month AOR, was 81.8% with complete occlusion in 216 out of 264 aneurysms. Use of flow diverters for the treatment of intracranial aneurysm with complex morphologies has gained in popularity over the last few years. Our review suggests that SFD achieves comparable AOR to its contemporary, the Pipeline Embolization Device (ev3 Endovascular, Plymouth, MN, USA) but has a higher rate of higher rate of ischemic complications, aneurysm rupture and mortality. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据