World neurosurgery · 2019
Pipeline Embolization Device for the Treatment of Intracranial Pseudoaneurysms.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание 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.
Chen Stephanie H, McCarthy David J, Sheinberg Dallas, Hanel Ricardo, Sur Samir, Jabbour Pascal, Atallah Elias, Chalouhi Nohra, Dumont Aaron, Amenta Peter, Hasan David, Raper Daniel, Liu Kenneth, Jane John A, Crowley R Webster, Aguilar-Salinas Pedro, Bentley Josh, Monteith Stephen, Mitchell Bartley D, Yavagal Dileep R, Peterson Eric C, Starke Robert M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Intracranial pseudoaneurysms (PSAs) are associated with high rupture and mortality rates and have traditionally been treated by parent vessel sacrifice. There has been recent interest in using flow-diverting devices for treatment of these complex lesions while preserving flow through the parent artery. The objective of this study is to examine the safety and efficacy of these devices in the treatment of intracranial PSA.
METHODS: We performed a multi-institutional retrospective study of intracranial PSAs treated with the Pipeline Embolization Device (PED) between 2014 and 2017 at 7 institutions. Complications and clinical and radiographic outcomes were reviewed.
RESULTS: A total of 19 patients underwent PED placement for intracranial PSA. Iatrogenic injury and trauma comprised most etiologies in our series. The mean pseudoaneurysm diameter was 8.8 mm, and 18 of 19 PSAs (95%) involved the internal carotid artery (ICA). Multiple PEDs were deployed in a telescoping fashion in 7 patients (37%). Of the 18 patients with follow up imaging, 14 (78%) achieved complete pseudoaneurysm obliteration and 2 achieved near-complete obliteration (11%). Two patients (11%) were found to have significant pseudoaneurysm progression on short-term follow-up and required ICA sacrifice. No patients experienced new neurologic deficits or deterioration secondary to PED placement. No patients experienced bleeding or rebleeding from PSA.
CONCLUSIONS: In well-selected patients, the use of flow-diverting stents may be a feasible alternative to parent vessel sacrifice. Given the high morbidity and mortality associated with PSA, we recommend short- and long-term radiographic follow-up for patients treated with flow-diverting stents.
METHODS: We performed a multi-institutional retrospective study of intracranial PSAs treated with the Pipeline Embolization Device (PED) between 2014 and 2017 at 7 institutions. Complications and clinical and radiographic outcomes were reviewed.
RESULTS: A total of 19 patients underwent PED placement for intracranial PSA. Iatrogenic injury and trauma comprised most etiologies in our series. The mean pseudoaneurysm diameter was 8.8 mm, and 18 of 19 PSAs (95%) involved the internal carotid artery (ICA). Multiple PEDs were deployed in a telescoping fashion in 7 patients (37%). Of the 18 patients with follow up imaging, 14 (78%) achieved complete pseudoaneurysm obliteration and 2 achieved near-complete obliteration (11%). Two patients (11%) were found to have significant pseudoaneurysm progression on short-term follow-up and required ICA sacrifice. No patients experienced new neurologic deficits or deterioration secondary to PED placement. No patients experienced bleeding or rebleeding from PSA.
CONCLUSIONS: In well-selected patients, the use of flow-diverting stents may be a feasible alternative to parent vessel sacrifice. Given the high morbidity and mortality associated with PSA, we recommend short- and long-term radiographic follow-up for patients treated with flow-diverting stents.