Neurosurgery · 2012
The pipeline flow-diverting stent for exclusion of ruptured intracranial aneurysms with difficult morphologies.
Клинический случайСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАВалидационное 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.
Martin Allan R, Cruz Juan Pablo, Matouk Charles C, Spears Julian, Marotta Thomas R
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The Pipeline Embolization Device (PED) is a flow-diverting stent that may represent a new therapeutic tool for difficult-to-treat intracranial aneurysms, including those that present with subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH).
OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the feasibility of utilizing the PED as a primary treatment for ruptured aneurysms with challenging morphologies.
METHODS: Three patients with ruptured intracranial aneurysms presented with SAH. Three distinct and difficult-to-treat aneurysm morphologies were encountered: (1) a small basilar trunk pseudoaneurysm, (2) a carotid artery blister aneurysm, and (3) an A1/A2 junction-dissecting-type aneurysm. All were treated with deployment of one or more PEDs across the aneurysm.
RESULTS: PEDs were successfully deployed in all 3 cases. Two patients were treated with 2 overlapping PEDs, and the third patient was treated with a single device. Aneurysm obliteration was achieved in all 3 cases with no early rehemorrhage or other clinically adverse event.
CONCLUSION: Endovascular treatment with the pipeline flow-diverting stent may be a viable treatment option for otherwise difficult-to-treat aneurysm morphologies in the context of acute SAH.
OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the feasibility of utilizing the PED as a primary treatment for ruptured aneurysms with challenging morphologies.
METHODS: Three patients with ruptured intracranial aneurysms presented with SAH. Three distinct and difficult-to-treat aneurysm morphologies were encountered: (1) a small basilar trunk pseudoaneurysm, (2) a carotid artery blister aneurysm, and (3) an A1/A2 junction-dissecting-type aneurysm. All were treated with deployment of one or more PEDs across the aneurysm.
RESULTS: PEDs were successfully deployed in all 3 cases. Two patients were treated with 2 overlapping PEDs, and the third patient was treated with a single device. Aneurysm obliteration was achieved in all 3 cases with no early rehemorrhage or other clinically adverse event.
CONCLUSION: Endovascular treatment with the pipeline flow-diverting stent may be a viable treatment option for otherwise difficult-to-treat aneurysm morphologies in the context of acute SAH.