M Shapiro1, E Raz2, T Becske3, P K Nelson4. 1. From the Departments of Radiology (M.S., E.R., T.B., P.K.N.), Bernard and Irene Schwartz Neurointerventional Radiology SectionNeurology (M.S., T.B.) maksim.shapiro@nyumc.org neuroangio@neuroangio.org. 2. From the Departments of Radiology (M.S., E.R., T.B., P.K.N.), Bernard and Irene Schwartz Neurointerventional Radiology Section. 3. From the Departments of Radiology (M.S., E.R., T.B., P.K.N.), Bernard and Irene Schwartz Neurointerventional Radiology SectionNeurology (M.S., T.B.). 4. From the Departments of Radiology (M.S., E.R., T.B., P.K.N.), Bernard and Irene Schwartz Neurointerventional Radiology SectionNeurosurgery (P.K.N.); New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The advent of low-porosity endoluminal devices, also known as flow diverters, exemplified by the Pipeline in the United States, produced the greatest paradigm shift in cerebral aneurysm treatment since the introduction of detachable coils. Despite robust evidence of efficacy and safety, key questions regarding the manner of their use remain unanswered. Recent studies demonstrated that the Pipeline device geometry can dramatically affect its metal coverage, emphasizing the negative effects of oversizing the device relative to its target vessels. This follow-up investigation focuses on the geometry and coverage of multidevice constructs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A number of Pipeline devices were deployed in tubes of known diameters and photographed, and the resultant coverage was determined by image segmentation. Multidevice segmentation images were created to study the effects of telescoped devices and provide an estimate of coverages resulting from device overlap. RESULTS: Double overlap yields a range of metal coverage, rather than a single value, determined by the diameters of both devices, the size of the recipient artery, and the degree to which strands of the overlapped devices are coregistered with each other. The potential variation in coverage is greatest during overlap of identical-diameter devices, for example, ranging from 24% to 41% for two 3.75-mm devices deployed in a 3.5-mm vessel. Overlapping devices of progressively different diameters produce correspondingly more uniform ranges of coverage, though reducing the maximum achievable value, for example, yielding a 33%-34% range for 3.75- and 4.75-mm devices deployed in the same 3.5-mm vessel. CONCLUSIONS: Rational strategies for building multidevice constructs can achieve favorable geometric outcomes.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The advent of low-porosity endoluminal devices, also known as flow diverters, exemplified by the Pipeline in the United States, produced the greatest paradigm shift in cerebral aneurysm treatment since the introduction of detachable coils. Despite robust evidence of efficacy and safety, key questions regarding the manner of their use remain unanswered. Recent studies demonstrated that the Pipeline device geometry can dramatically affect its metal coverage, emphasizing the negative effects of oversizing the device relative to its target vessels. This follow-up investigation focuses on the geometry and coverage of multidevice constructs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A number of Pipeline devices were deployed in tubes of known diameters and photographed, and the resultant coverage was determined by image segmentation. Multidevice segmentation images were created to study the effects of telescoped devices and provide an estimate of coverages resulting from device overlap. RESULTS: Double overlap yields a range of metal coverage, rather than a single value, determined by the diameters of both devices, the size of the recipient artery, and the degree to which strands of the overlapped devices are coregistered with each other. The potential variation in coverage is greatest during overlap of identical-diameter devices, for example, ranging from 24% to 41% for two 3.75-mm devices deployed in a 3.5-mm vessel. Overlapping devices of progressively different diameters produce correspondingly more uniform ranges of coverage, though reducing the maximum achievable value, for example, yielding a 33%-34% range for 3.75- and 4.75-mm devices deployed in the same 3.5-mm vessel. CONCLUSIONS: Rational strategies for building multidevice constructs can achieve favorable geometric outcomes.
Authors: Tibor Becske; David F Kallmes; Isil Saatci; Cameron G McDougall; István Szikora; Giuseppe Lanzino; Christopher J Moran; Henry H Woo; Demetrius K Lopes; Aaron L Berez; Daniel J Cher; Adnan H Siddiqui; Elad I Levy; Felipe C Albuquerque; David J Fiorella; Zsolt Berentei; Miklós Marosfoi; Saruhan H Cekirge; Peter K Nelson Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-02-15 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Fabrice Bing; Tim E Darsaut; Igor Salazkin; Alina Makoyeva; Guylaine Gevry; Jean Raymond Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2012-08-16 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: J M Ospel; G Gascou; V Costalat; L Piergallini; K A Blackham; D W Zumofen Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-02-07 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: T P Madaelil; J A Grossberg; B M Howard; C M Cawley; J Dion; R G Nogueira; D C Haussen; F C Tong Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-03-07 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Robert Fahed; Tim E Darsaut; Jean-Christophe Gentric; Behzad Farzin; Igor Salazkin; Guylaine Gevry; Jean Raymond Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2017-02-27 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: D W Zumofen; M Shapiro; T Becske; E Raz; M B Potts; H A Riina; P K Nelson Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-03-19 Impact factor: 3.825