Suppr超能文献

梭形颅内动脉瘤的血流导向。

Flow diversion of fusiform intracranial aneurysms.

机构信息

Department of Neurosurgery, Duke University Medical Center, Box 3807, Erwin Road, Durham, NC, 27710, USA.

出版信息

Neurosurg Rev. 2021 Jun;44(3):1471-1478. doi: 10.1007/s10143-020-01332-0. Epub 2020 Jun 20.

Abstract

Fusiform aneurysms are less common than saccular aneurysms, but have higher associated mortality and rebleeding rates. Recently, flow diversion has emerged as a possible treatment option. The purpose of this study was to determine the safety and efficacy of the Pipeline Embolization Device (PED) for the treatment of ruptured and unruptured fusiform aneurysms. This was a retrospective analysis of patients with fusiform intracranial aneurysms treated with a PED at a quaternary care center between January 2012 and September 2019. Occlusion rates, neurologic morbidity/mortality, and other clinical variables were analyzed. Twenty-nine patients with 30 fusiform aneurysms were treated with a PED. Sixteen aneurysms (53%) were located in the anterior circulation and 14 aneurysms (47%) were in the posterior circulation. The mean maximal diameter of the aneurysms was 10.1 ± 5.6 mm (range 2.3-25 mm). Angiographic and clinical follow-up were available for 28 aneurysms (93%). The median follow-up was 17.4 months (IQR 4.8 to 28 months) and occlusion rates were graded according to the O'Kelly-Marotta (OKM) scale. Of patients with DSA follow-up, 15 aneurysms (60%) were completely occluded (OKM D) and 19 aneurysms (76%) had a favorable occlusion result (OKM C1-3 and D). The overall complication rate was 26.7% with a neurological morbidity rate of 6.7% and neurological mortality rate of 3.4%. Flow diversion can be an effective treatment for both ruptured and unruptured fusiform aneurysms. Nevertheless, complete occlusion rates are lower than for saccular aneurysms. Therefore, flow diversion should be considered only if other more direct treatment options, such as clipping or stent/coiling are not applicable. Flow diversion should be used cautiously in patients presenting with rupture.

摘要

梭形动脉瘤比囊状动脉瘤少见,但与之相关的死亡率和再出血率更高。最近,血流导向装置已成为一种可能的治疗选择。本研究旨在确定 Pipeline 栓塞装置(PED)治疗破裂和未破裂梭形颅内动脉瘤的安全性和有效性。这是一项回顾性分析,纳入 2012 年 1 月至 2019 年 9 月在一家四级医疗中心接受 PED 治疗的梭形颅内动脉瘤患者。分析了闭塞率、神经功能障碍/死亡率和其他临床变量。29 例患者共 30 个梭形动脉瘤接受了 PED 治疗。16 个动脉瘤(53%)位于前循环,14 个动脉瘤(47%)位于后循环。动脉瘤的最大直径平均值为 10.1±5.6mm(范围 2.3-25mm)。28 个动脉瘤(93%)有血管造影和临床随访资料。中位随访时间为 17.4 个月(IQR 4.8-28 个月),闭塞率根据 O'Kelly-Marotta(OKM)分级标准进行评估。有 DSA 随访的患者中,15 个动脉瘤(60%)完全闭塞(OKM D),19 个动脉瘤(76%)闭塞结果良好(OKM C1-3 和 D)。总的并发症发生率为 26.7%,神经功能障碍发生率为 6.7%,神经死亡率为 3.4%。血流导向装置可有效治疗破裂和未破裂的梭形动脉瘤。然而,完全闭塞率低于囊状动脉瘤。因此,只有在其他更直接的治疗方法(如夹闭或支架/线圈)不适用时,才应考虑血流导向装置。在破裂的患者中应谨慎使用血流导向装置。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验