Pervinder Bhogal1, Rosa Martinez2, Oliver Gansladt3, Hansjörg Bäzner4, Hans Henkes2,5, Marta Aguilar2. 1. Neuroradiological Clinic, Neurocenter, Klinikum Stuttgart, Kriegsbergstrasse 60, 70174, Stuttgart, Germany. bhogalweb@aol.com. 2. Neuroradiological Clinic, Neurocenter, Klinikum Stuttgart, Kriegsbergstrasse 60, 70174, Stuttgart, Germany. 3. Neurosurgical Clinic, Neurocenter, Klinikum Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany. 4. Neurological Clinic, Neurocenter, Klinikum Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany. 5. Medical Faculty, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The optimal strategy for the treatment of M1 segment aneurysms has not yet been determined as both standard microneurosurgical and endovascular techniques can pose challenges. We sought to determine the efficacy of flow diverting stents to treat small, unruptured aneurysms of the M1 segment. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed our database of prospectively collected information for all patients treated with flow diversion for an unruptured saccular aneurysm of the middle cerebral artery (MCA) between February 2009 and February 2016. The relationship to early cortical branches, aneurysm fundus size, number and type of flow diverting stent (FDS), complications and follow-up data were recorded. RESULTS: In total 15 patients were identified that matched our inclusion criteria (11 female and 4 male). The average age of the patients was 58.3 years (range 14-76 years). All patients had a single aneurysm affecting the M1 segment of the MCA, 10 (66.6%) of which were related to early cortical branches and 10 aneurysms were located on the left (66.6%). The average aneurysm fundus size was 3 mm (range 2-9 mm) and 13 patients had follow-up angiographic studies. In total, 8 aneurysms were completely excluded, and 6 remained incompletely occluded (3 modified Raymond-Roy classification [mRRC] II and 3 mRRC IIIa). One patient suffered a stroke and another patient had an iatrogenic vessel dissection that was not flow limiting. CONCLUSION: Flow diversion can be used to treat small, unruptured aneurysms of the M1 segment of the MCA and even though side vessel occlusion can occur clinically relevant infarction occurs infrequently.
PURPOSE: The optimal strategy for the treatment of M1 segment aneurysms has not yet been determined as both standard microneurosurgical and endovascular techniques can pose challenges. We sought to determine the efficacy of flow diverting stents to treat small, unruptured aneurysms of the M1 segment. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed our database of prospectively collected information for all patients treated with flow diversion for an unruptured saccular aneurysm of the middle cerebral artery (MCA) between February 2009 and February 2016. The relationship to early cortical branches, aneurysm fundus size, number and type of flow diverting stent (FDS), complications and follow-up data were recorded. RESULTS: In total 15 patients were identified that matched our inclusion criteria (11 female and 4 male). The average age of the patients was 58.3 years (range 14-76 years). All patients had a single aneurysm affecting the M1 segment of the MCA, 10 (66.6%) of which were related to early cortical branches and 10 aneurysms were located on the left (66.6%). The average aneurysm fundus size was 3 mm (range 2-9 mm) and 13 patients had follow-up angiographic studies. In total, 8 aneurysms were completely excluded, and 6 remained incompletely occluded (3 modified Raymond-Roy classification [mRRC] II and 3 mRRC IIIa). One patient suffered a stroke and another patient had an iatrogenic vessel dissection that was not flow limiting. CONCLUSION: Flow diversion can be used to treat small, unruptured aneurysms of the M1 segment of the MCA and even though side vessel occlusion can occur clinically relevant infarction occurs infrequently.
Authors: Reza Dashti; Jaakko Rinne; Juha Hernesniemi; Mika Niemelä; Leena Kivipelto; Martin Lehecka; Ayse Karatas; Emel Avci; Keisuke Ishii; Hu Shen; José G Peláez; Baki S Albayrak; Antti Ronkainen; Timo Koivisto; Juha E Jääskeläinen Journal: Surg Neurol Date: 2007-01
Authors: David O Wiebers; J P Whisnant; J Huston; I Meissner; R D Brown; D G Piepgras; G S Forbes; K Thielen; D Nichols; W M O'Fallon; J Peacock; L Jaeger; N F Kassell; G L Kongable-Beckman; J C Torner Journal: Lancet Date: 2003-07-12 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Mario Zanaty; Nohra Chalouhi; Stavropoula I Tjoumakaris; L Fernando Gonzalez; Robert Rosenwasser; Pascal Jabbour Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2014-02-18 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: F Cagnazzo; P Perrini; C Dargazanli; P-H Lefevre; G Gascou; R Morganti; D di Carlo; I Derraz; C Riquelme; A Bonafe; V Costalat Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-03-14 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: David C Lauzier; Brandon K Root; Yasha Kayan; Josser E Delgado Almandoz; Joshua W Osbun; Arindam R Chatterjee; Kayla L Whaley; Megan E Tipps; Christopher J Moran; Akash P Kansagra Journal: Interv Neuroradiol Date: 2021-05-05 Impact factor: 1.610
Authors: Peter Voigt; Stefan Schob; Robert Jantschke; Ulf Nestler; Matthias Krause; David Weise; Donald Lobsien; Karl-Titus Hoffmann; Ulf Quäschling Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2017-11-14 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: P Bhogal; Hld Makalanda; K Wong; P Keston; J Downer; J C Du Plessis; A Nania; D Simonato; M Fuschi; W Chong; S O'Reilly; I Rennie Journal: Interv Neuroradiol Date: 2021-06-02 Impact factor: 1.764
Authors: Pervinder Bhogal; Elina Henkes; Stefan Schob; Muhammad AlMatter; Victoria Hellstern; Hansjörg Bäzner; Oliver Ganslandt; Hans Henkes; Marta Aguilar Pérez Journal: Surg Neurol Int Date: 2018-10-30