B Lubicz1, O Van der Elst2, L Collignon3, B Mine2, F Alghamdi2. 1. From the Department of Neuroradiology (B.L., O.V.d.E., B.M., F.A.), Erasme University Hospital, Brussels, Belgium blubicz@ulb.ac.be. 2. From the Department of Neuroradiology (B.L., O.V.d.E., B.M., F.A.), Erasme University Hospital, Brussels, Belgium. 3. Department of Radiology (L.C.), Centre Hospitalier Régional Citadelle, Liège, Belgium.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The Silk flow-diverter stent is increasingly used to treat complex intracranial aneurysms including wide-neck, fusiform aneurysms. Sparse data are available concerning long-term results of this technique. We report our 5-year experience with Silk stent treatment of intracranial aneurysms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of our prospectively maintained database identified all patients treated by the Silk stent in 2 institutions. Clinical charts, procedural data, and angiographic results were reviewed. RESULTS: Between July 2009 and May 2014, we identified 58 patients with 70 intracranial aneurysms. Endovascular treatment was successful in 93% of patients with 32 treated with the first-generation Silk stent and 26 with the new Silk+ stent. Mean follow-up in 47 patients was 22 months. Despite an 11% delayed complication rate, overall permanent neurologic morbidity was 5.5%. All complications were seen with the first-generation Silk stent. There was no procedure-related mortality. Long-term anatomic results showed 73% with complete occlusion, 16% with neck remnants, and 11% with incomplete occlusion. No recanalization or retreatment was performed. The midterm intrastent stenosis rate was 57%, of which 60% improved or disappeared, 28% were stable, and 12% led to vessel occlusion. Seventy-four percent of stenosis and all vessel occlusions occurred with the first-generation Silk stent. CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular treatment of complex intracranial aneurysms with the Silk stent is an effective therapeutic option. Despite a high rate of delayed complications with the first-generation stents, the current Silk+ stent appears safer. This treatment achieves a high rate of adequate and stable occlusion at long-term follow-up.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The Silk flow-diverter stent is increasingly used to treat complex intracranial aneurysms including wide-neck, fusiform aneurysms. Sparse data are available concerning long-term results of this technique. We report our 5-year experience with Silk stent treatment of intracranial aneurysms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of our prospectively maintained database identified all patients treated by the Silk stent in 2 institutions. Clinical charts, procedural data, and angiographic results were reviewed. RESULTS: Between July 2009 and May 2014, we identified 58 patients with 70 intracranial aneurysms. Endovascular treatment was successful in 93% of patients with 32 treated with the first-generation Silk stent and 26 with the new Silk+ stent. Mean follow-up in 47 patients was 22 months. Despite an 11% delayed complication rate, overall permanent neurologic morbidity was 5.5%. All complications were seen with the first-generation Silk stent. There was no procedure-related mortality. Long-term anatomic results showed 73% with complete occlusion, 16% with neck remnants, and 11% with incomplete occlusion. No recanalization or retreatment was performed. The midterm intrastent stenosis rate was 57%, of which 60% improved or disappeared, 28% were stable, and 12% led to vessel occlusion. Seventy-four percent of stenosis and all vessel occlusions occurred with the first-generation Silk stent. CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular treatment of complex intracranial aneurysms with the Silk stent is an effective therapeutic option. Despite a high rate of delayed complications with the first-generation stents, the current Silk+ stent appears safer. This treatment achieves a high rate of adequate and stable occlusion at long-term follow-up.
Authors: J Berge; A Biondi; P Machi; H Brunel; L Pierot; J Gabrillargues; K Kadziolka; X Barreau; V Dousset; A Bonafé Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-02-02 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Andrew Molyneux; Richard Kerr; Irene Stratton; Peter Sandercock; Mike Clarke; Julia Shrimpton; Rury Holman Journal: Lancet Date: 2002-10-26 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Olli I Tähtinen; Hannu I Manninen; Ritva L Vanninen; Janne Seppänen; Tero Niskakangas; Jaakko Rinne; Leo Keski-Nisula Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: José E Cohen; John Moshe Gomori; Samuel Moscovici; Ronen R Leker; Eyal Itshayek Journal: J Clin Neurosci Date: 2013-12-07 Impact factor: 1.961
Authors: Sandra P Ferns; Marieke E S Sprengers; Willem Jan van Rooij; Gabriël J E Rinkel; Jeroen C van Rijn; Shandra Bipat; Menno Sluzewski; Charles B L M Majoie Journal: Stroke Date: 2009-06-11 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: H Oishi; T Fujii; M Suzuki; N Takano; K Teranishi; K Yatomi; T Kitamura; M Yamamoto; S Aoki; H Arai Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-05-02 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: G Foa Torres; F Roca; A Noguera; J Godes; S Petrocelli; I Aznar; S Ales; P Muszynski; R Maehara; M Vicente; J M Pumar Journal: Interv Neuroradiol Date: 2018-05-02 Impact factor: 1.610