4.2 Article

Treatment of ruptured middle cerebral artery aneurysms by endovascular approach: a single-center experience

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 127, 期 5, 页码 433-438

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00207454.2016.1190923

关键词

middle cerebral artery; cerebral aneurysm; endovascular coiling; morbidity; outcome

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The optimal treatment modalities of ruptured middle cerebral artery aneurysm are still controversial. The objective of this study is to analyze the outcomes of patients with ruptured middle cerebral artery aneurysms treated by endovascular coiling. Materials and methods: From October 2011 to October 2015, 67 patients with 71 ruptured middle cerebral artery aneurysms received endovascular coiling in our hospital. We retrospectively reviewed the clinical, radiologic records and outcomes. Results: Of all the 71 aneurysms (67 patients), 42 were treated by coil embolization merely, 27 by stent-assisted coiling and 2 unruptured aneurysms in patients with bilateral middle cerebral artery aneurysms without receiving treatment. Complete occlusion was achieved in 82.6% (57/69) of all the procedures. Each of incomplete and partial occlusion rates was 8.7% (6/69). Intraoperative rupture of aneurysms occurred in two procedures (2.9%). Thrombogenesis occurred in eight procedures (11.6%). Brain infarction occurred in eight patients (11.9%). Post-operative rebleeding occurred in seven patients (10.4%). Sixty-three patients were followed at a mean follow-up of 8.24 +/- 7.16 months. The mortality and good outcome rate were 3.2% and 90.5%, respectively. Aneurysm recurrence occurred in 6 (13.3%) of the 45 aneurysms at a mean follow-up of 8.44 +/- 7.83 months. Conclusions: Endovascular coiling is effective for patients with ruptured middle cerebral artery aneurysms. Individualized treatment should be assessed by experienced specialist. It is essential to perform randomized large trials to confirm the efficiency of endovascular coiling.

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

4.2
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