Horiuchi Kazufumi, Fuga Michiyasu, Tachi Rintaro, Ishibashi Toshihiro, Aoki Ken, Kato Naoki, Kan Issei, Hataoka Shunsuke, Nagayama Gota, Sano Tohru, Teshigawara Akihiko, Hasegawa Yuzuru, Murayama Yuichi
Department of Neurosurgery, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Kashiwa Hospital, Kashiwa, Chiba, Japan.
Department of Neurosurgery, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Minato-Ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Neurosurg Rev. 2025 Aug 4;48(1):589. doi: 10.1007/s10143-025-03746-0.
The transradial approach (TRA) reduces access site complications (ASCs) compared with the transfemoral approach (TFA) in neuroendovascular procedures. However, its stability of efficacy after unruptured intracranial aneurysm (UIA) embolization remains unclear. This study aimed to compare recanalization rates, safety, and procedural outcomes between TFA and TRA.We retrospectively analyzed 425 saccular UIAs (413 patients) treated with initial coil embolization at three institutions between March 2021 and September 2023. Patients were classified into TFA and TRA groups. A propensity score-matched analysis controlled for clinical, anatomical, and procedural variables. Recanalization and safety outcomes were assessed at a 1-year follow-up.Of the 425 aneurysms, embolization was performed via the TFA in 354 cases (83%) and via the TRA in 71 cases (17%). A total of 62 matched pairs from the TFA and TRA groups were identified using propensity score matching. There was no significant difference in the recanalization rate between the two groups: 6.5% in the TFA group (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.5-15.4%) and 8.1% in the TRA group (95% CI, 3.5-17.5%; P = 1.00). Similarly, no significant differences were observed in the rate of re-treatment, Raymond-Roy occlusion classification immediately after treatment, or the immediate post-procedural volume embolization ratio. In contrast, the overall incidence of ASCs was significantly higher in the TFA group, occurring in 15% of patients (95% CI, 7.8-25.3%) compared with 1.6% in the TRA group (95% CI, 0.3-8.6%; P = 0.02).While recanalization and other procedural outcomes were comparable between TRA and TFA, the significantly lower rate of ASCs associated with TRA highlights its clinical advantage. These findings support the adoption of TRA as a safer and equally effective alternative to TFA for coil embolization of UIAs.
在神经血管介入手术中,经桡动脉途径(TRA)与经股动脉途径(TFA)相比,可减少穿刺部位并发症(ASC)。然而,其在未破裂颅内动脉瘤(UIA)栓塞术后疗效的稳定性尚不清楚。本研究旨在比较TFA和TRA的再通率、安全性及手术结果。我们回顾性分析了2021年3月至2023年9月期间在三家机构接受初次弹簧圈栓塞治疗的425个囊状UIA(413例患者)。患者被分为TFA组和TRA组。采用倾向评分匹配分析来控制临床、解剖和手术变量。在1年随访时评估再通和安全结果。在425个动脉瘤中,354例(83%)通过TFA进行栓塞,71例(17%)通过TRA进行栓塞。使用倾向评分匹配从TFA组和TRA组中确定了总共62对匹配病例。两组的再通率无显著差异:TFA组为6.5%(95%置信区间[CI],2.5 - 15.4%),TRA组为8.1%(95%CI,3.5 - 17.5%;P = 1.00)。同样,在再治疗率、治疗后即刻的Raymond - Roy闭塞分级或术后即刻的体积栓塞率方面也未观察到显著差异。相比之下,TFA组ASC的总体发生率显著更高,15%的患者发生(95%CI,7.8 - 25.3%),而TRA组为1.6%(95%CI,0.3 - 8.6%;P = 0.02)。虽然TRA和TFA之间的再通及其他手术结果相当,但与TRA相关的ASC发生率显著较低突出了其临床优势。这些发现支持将TRA作为TFA在UIA弹簧圈栓塞中更安全且同样有效的替代方法。