The neuroradiology journal · 2021
Endovascular treatment of cavernous carotid artery aneurysms: A 10-year, single-center experience.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lee Hubert, Marotta Thomas R, Spears Julian, Sarma Dipanka, Montanera Walter, Bharatha Aditya
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Cavernous carotid artery aneurysms can be treated by several endovascular techniques including flow diversion (FD) and parent vessel occlusion (PVO). We reviewed our institution's consecutive series of endovascularly treated cavernous carotid artery aneurysms to compare these two modalities and their associated clinical and radiographic outcomes.
METHODS: All patients harboring a cavernous carotid artery aneurysm treated by FD or PVO from January 2008 to December 2018 were enrolled. Data were collected retrospectively and analyzed on patient presentation, aneurysm dimensions, treatments and related complications, rate of aneurysm occlusion, sac regression, and outcomes.
RESULTS: Fourteen patients were treated with FD and 12 underwent PVO subsequent to passing a balloon test occlusion. There was no significant difference between treatment modalities in aneurysmal occlusion (97.0 ± 8.4% (FD) vs. 100% (PVO), p = 0.23), degree of sac regression (62.5 ± 16.7% (FD) vs. 56.8 ± 24.3% (PVO), p = 0.49), or near-complete to complete symptom improvement (66.7% (FD) vs. 81.8% (PVO), p = 0.62). Major complications included subarachnoid hemorrhage from aneurysmal rupture in 1 (7.1%) patient post-FD and 2 (16.7%) ischemic strokes following PVO.
CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular treatment of cavernous carotid artery aneurysms by FD or PVO are both effective and safe. There is insufficient evidence to recommend one technique over the other and decision making should be individualized to the patient, their aneurysm morphology, and operator experience.
METHODS: All patients harboring a cavernous carotid artery aneurysm treated by FD or PVO from January 2008 to December 2018 were enrolled. Data were collected retrospectively and analyzed on patient presentation, aneurysm dimensions, treatments and related complications, rate of aneurysm occlusion, sac regression, and outcomes.
RESULTS: Fourteen patients were treated with FD and 12 underwent PVO subsequent to passing a balloon test occlusion. There was no significant difference between treatment modalities in aneurysmal occlusion (97.0 ± 8.4% (FD) vs. 100% (PVO), p = 0.23), degree of sac regression (62.5 ± 16.7% (FD) vs. 56.8 ± 24.3% (PVO), p = 0.49), or near-complete to complete symptom improvement (66.7% (FD) vs. 81.8% (PVO), p = 0.62). Major complications included subarachnoid hemorrhage from aneurysmal rupture in 1 (7.1%) patient post-FD and 2 (16.7%) ischemic strokes following PVO.
CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular treatment of cavernous carotid artery aneurysms by FD or PVO are both effective and safe. There is insufficient evidence to recommend one technique over the other and decision making should be individualized to the patient, their aneurysm morphology, and operator experience.