H U Kerl1, M Al-Zghloul, C Groden, M A Brockmann. 1. Department of Neuroradiology, Medical Faculty Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1–3, Mannheim, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Stent dislocation is a rarely encountered problem in interventional neuroradiology. This article describes the repositioning of a pipeline embolization device (PED) dislocated from the vertebral artery (VA) into the basilar artery (BA) using a stent-in-stent technique. Based on this case additional in vitro measurements were performed. METHODS: In a patient, a larger PED (4.0 × 20 mm) was partially opened in a PED (3.0 × 20 mm) floating freely within the distal BA. The microcatheter with the partially opened stent was pulled back hereby pulling back the stent-in-stent construct into the VA. In vitro the maximum tensile force that could be applied to a 3.5 mm and a 4.5 mm PED before dislodgement out of a 3.0 mm PED was determined. Videomorphometric analyses of the stent-in-stent construct were performed while applying traction to the construct. RESULTS: Repositioning of a dislocated PED is feasible using a stent-in-stent technique. Higher dislodgement forces can be applied using a larger PED (4.5 mm, 0.36 N) whereas dislodgement occurred faster using a smaller PED (3.5 mm, 0.26 N). Before dislodgement occurs, elongation and tapering of both stents can be seen. Finally, it was found that incidental extraction of the 4.5 mm PED out of the delivering microcatheter during traction is possible. CONCLUSIONS: Repositioning of a lost PED is feasible using a stent-in-stent technique. Principally, dislodgement force is higher using a larger PED, while in this case care has to be taken to avoid incidental extraction of the second PED out of the microcatheter.
PURPOSE: Stent dislocation is a rarely encountered problem in interventional neuroradiology. This article describes the repositioning of a pipeline embolization device (PED) dislocated from the vertebral artery (VA) into the basilar artery (BA) using a stent-in-stent technique. Based on this case additional in vitro measurements were performed. METHODS: In a patient, a larger PED (4.0 × 20 mm) was partially opened in a PED (3.0 × 20 mm) floating freely within the distal BA. The microcatheter with the partially opened stent was pulled back hereby pulling back the stent-in-stent construct into the VA. In vitro the maximum tensile force that could be applied to a 3.5 mm and a 4.5 mm PED before dislodgement out of a 3.0 mm PED was determined. Videomorphometric analyses of the stent-in-stent construct were performed while applying traction to the construct. RESULTS: Repositioning of a dislocated PED is feasible using a stent-in-stent technique. Higher dislodgement forces can be applied using a larger PED (4.5 mm, 0.36 N) whereas dislodgement occurred faster using a smaller PED (3.5 mm, 0.26 N). Before dislodgement occurs, elongation and tapering of both stents can be seen. Finally, it was found that incidental extraction of the 4.5 mm PED out of the delivering microcatheter during traction is possible. CONCLUSIONS: Repositioning of a lost PED is feasible using a stent-in-stent technique. Principally, dislodgement force is higher using a larger PED, while in this case care has to be taken to avoid incidental extraction of the second PED out of the microcatheter.
Authors: Samuel S N Zhou; Thien V How; S Rao Vallabhaneni; Geoffrey L Gilling-Smith; John A Brennan; Peter L Harris; Richard McWilliams Journal: J Endovasc Ther Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 3.487
Authors: Ronie L Piske; Luis H Kanashiro; Eric Paschoal; Celso Agner; Sergio S Lima; Paulo H Aguiar Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Alessandra Biondi; Vallabh Janardhan; Jeffrey M Katz; Kimberly Salvaggio; Howard A Riina; Y Pierre Gobin Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Irwin V Mohan; Peter L Harris; Corine J Van Marrewijk; Robert J Laheij; Thien V How Journal: J Endovasc Ther Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 3.487
Authors: Andrew J Molyneux; Richard S C Kerr; Ly-Mee Yu; Mike Clarke; Mary Sneade; Julia A Yarnold; Peter Sandercock Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 Sep 3-9 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Mario Martínez-Galdámez; Joaquin Ortega-Quintanilla; Antonio Hermosín; Eduardo Crespo-Vallejo; Juan José Ailagas; Santiago Pérez Journal: BMJ Case Rep Date: 2016-03-23
Authors: Tareq Meyer; Omid Nikoubashman; Lisa Kabelitz; Marguerite Müller; Ahmed Othman; Saif Afat; Martin Kramer; Martin Wiesmann; Marc A Brockmann; Carolin Brockmann Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-05-25 Impact factor: 3.240