4.5 Article

Flow-Diverter Stents for the Treatment of Saccular Middle Cerebral Artery Bifurcation Aneurysms

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF NEURORADIOLOGY
卷 37, 期 2, 页码 279-284

出版社

AMER SOC NEURORADIOLOGY
DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A4540

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fourteen patients with 15 saccular, nondissecting MCA bifurcation aneurysms were treated with flow-diverter stents and were retrospectively analyzed. Procedure-related morbidity and mortality at last follow-up were 21% and 0%, respectively. Complete occlusion was achieved in 62%. The authors conclude that compared with other therapeutic options, flow-diverter stents do not appear to be suitable for the treatment of saccular MCA bifurcation aneurysms. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The flow-diverter stent has been proved a feasible, safe, and efficient technique, particularly for the treatment of large and broad-neck carotid siphon aneurysms. Wide-neck bifurcation aneurysms remain, in some cases, a challenge for neurointerventionalists. We report the outcomes of the treatment of saccular middle cerebral artery bifurcation aneurysms with flow diversion in our institution. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From the institution data base, all saccular, nondissecting MCA bifurcation aneurysms, treated with flow-diverter stents, were retrospectively reviewed. Technical issues, immediate posttreatment and follow-up angiographic findings, and clinical outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: Fourteen patients with 15 aneurysms were included in the study. Ischemic complications, as confirmed by MR imaging, occurred in 6 patients (43%). Procedure-related morbidity and mortality at last follow-up were 21% and 0%, respectively. Angiographic follow-up was available for 13 aneurysms, with a mean follow-up of 16 months. Complete occlusion was obtained for 8 aneurysms (62%). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with other available therapeutic options, the flow-diverter stent does not appear to be a suitable solution for the treatment of saccular MCA bifurcation aneurysms.

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

4.5
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