Suppr超能文献

比较经桡动脉和经股动脉入路进行颅内动脉瘤血流导向治疗的双中心研究。

Dual-center study comparing transradial and transfemoral approaches for flow diversion treatment of intracranial aneurysms.

作者信息

Khandelwal Priyank, Majmundar Neil, Rodriguez Gustavo J, Patel Pratit, Dodson Vincent, Singla Amit, Khatri Rakesh, Gupta Vikas, Sheriff Faheem, Vellipuram Anantha, Cruz-Flores Salvador, Maud Alberto

机构信息

Department of Neurological Surgery, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ, USA.

Department of Neurology, Paul L. Foster School of Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, El Paso, TX, USA.

出版信息

Brain Circ. 2021 May 29;7(2):65-70. doi: 10.4103/bc.bc_38_20. eCollection 2021 Apr-Jun.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The transfemoral approach (TFA) has been the traditional approach for neurointerventional cases. While the TFA allows for triaxial support in flow diverting stent cases, it is associated with access site complications. Recently, the transradial approach (TRA) has emerged as a safer alternative to the TFA. To the best of our knowledge, there have only been single-center studies comparing outcomes in flow diverter cases for these approaches. We demonstrate the safety and feasibility of the TRA for placement of flow diverting stents in the treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms at two high-volume centers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of prospectively collected institutional databases at two high-volume neuroendovascular centers. Cases from 2016 to 2018 of unruptured intracranial aneurysms treated by flow diverting stenting accessed through either the TRA or the TFA were compared. Patient demographics, procedural and radiographic metrics including location and size of the aneurysm, size, and length of the flow diverter implant, and fluoroscopic time were recorded. Puncture site complications and length of hospital stay were also included in the data analysis.

RESULTS

There were three out of 29 TRA cases which were converted to the TFA. None of the TRA patients experienced site complications, whereas three TFA patients experienced site complications. While TRA and TFA patients did not differ significantly in their exposure to radiation, TRA patients experienced shorter hospital stays.

CONCLUSIONS

While long-term studies are still lacking regarding this approach, we demonstrate that the TRA is a safe and feasible approach for flow diverter stent placement.

摘要

背景

经股动脉入路(TFA)一直是神经介入病例的传统入路。虽然TFA在血流导向支架病例中可提供三轴支撑,但它与穿刺部位并发症相关。最近,经桡动脉入路(TRA)已成为TFA更安全的替代方法。据我们所知,仅有单中心研究比较了这些入路在血流导向支架病例中的结果。我们在两个高流量中心证明了TRA在未破裂颅内动脉瘤治疗中放置血流血流血流血流导向支架的安全性和可行性。

材料与方法

我们对两个高流量神经血管中心前瞻性收集的机构数据库进行了回顾性分析。比较了2016年至2018年通过TRA或TFA进行血流导向支架置入治疗的未破裂颅内动脉瘤病例。记录患者人口统计学资料、手术和影像学指标,包括动脉瘤的位置和大小、血流导向植入物的大小和长度以及透视时间。数据分析还包括穿刺部位并发症和住院时间。

结果

29例TRA病例中有3例转为TFA。TRA患者均未发生穿刺部位并发症,而3例TFA患者发生了穿刺部位并发症。虽然TRA和TFA患者在辐射暴露方面无显著差异,但TRA患者的住院时间较短。

结论

虽然关于这种方法仍缺乏长期研究,但我们证明TRA是一种安全可行的血流导向支架置入方法。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/5a8d/8191526/6ca101372441/BC-7-65-g001.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验