Cai Heng, Yang Fangyu, Xu Yousong, Geng Yu, Li Jinwei, Li Yugang, Fu Kailei, Liu Chang, Wang Meiyan, Li Zhiqing
Department of Neurosurgery, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Department of Neurosurgery, General Hospital of Northern Theater Command, Shenyang, China.
Front Neurol. 2022 Oct 13;13:1014596. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2022.1014596. eCollection 2022.
To compare the safety and efficacy of Pipeline and Tubridge Flow Diverter devices (FDs) in the treatment of intracranial wide-necked aneurysms.
We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 92 patients with intracranial wide-necked aneurysms who were treated with those two flow-diverter devices (FDs) at four participating centers between July 2012 and December 2020.
This study included 92 patients who underwent endovascular therapy using either Pipeline™ ( = 39) or Tubridge ( = 53) for treating intracranial wide-necked aneurysms. The periprocedural complication developed in 2.56% (1/39) patients of Pipeline group and 3.77% (2/53) patients of the Tubridge group. During perioperative period, one patient in Pipeline™ group showed subarachnoid hemorrhage (2.56%, 1/39) and two ischemic complications in the Tubridge™ group (3.77%, 2/53). Follow-up assessments were conducted on 31 patients (79.49%) in the Pipeline™ group (the mean follow-up period was 9.7 ± 3.3 months). The rate of complete aneurysm occlusion at the final angiographic follow-up was 77.42%. Patients with a modified Rankin scale (mRS) score of 0.44 ± 0.31. Follow-up assessments were conducted on 42 patients (79.25%) in the Tubridge group (the mean follow-up period was 9.1 ± 4.4 months). The rate of complete aneurysm occlusion at the final angiographic follow-up was 85.71%. Patients with mRS score of 0.52 ± 0.28. Three patients showed parent artery stenosis, and one showed parent artery occlusion.
Both the Pipeline and Tubridge are safe and effective for the treatment of intracranial wide-necked aneurysms, with no significant difference in the rate of complete aneurysm occlusion and perioperative complications between the two FDs.
比较Pipeline和Tubridge血流导向装置（FDs）治疗颅内宽颈动脉瘤的安全性和有效性。
我们回顾性分析了2012年7月至2020年12月期间在四个参与中心接受这两种血流导向装置（FDs）治疗的92例颅内宽颈动脉瘤患者的临床资料。
本研究纳入了92例接受血管内治疗的患者，其中39例使用Pipeline™，53例使用Tubridge治疗颅内宽颈动脉瘤。Pipeline组2.56%（1/39）的患者出现围手术期并发症，Tubridge组3.77%（2/53）的患者出现围手术期并发症。围手术期，Pipeline™组有1例患者出现蛛网膜下腔出血（2.56%，1/39），Tubridge™组有2例缺血性并发症（3.77%，2/53）。对Pipeline™组31例患者（79.49%）进行了随访评估（平均随访时间为9.7±3.3个月）。最终血管造影随访时动脉瘤完全闭塞率为77.42%。改良Rankin量表（mRS）评分为0.44±0.31。对Tubridge组42例患者（79.25 %）进行了随访评估（平均随访时间为9.1±4.4个月）。最终血管造影随访时动脉瘤完全闭塞率为85.71%。mRS评分为0.52±0.28。3例患者出现载瘤动脉狭窄，1例出现载瘤动脉闭塞。
Pipeline和Tubridge治疗颅内宽颈动脉瘤均安全有效，两种血流导向装置在动脉瘤完全闭塞率和围手术期并发症方面无显著差异。
