H Oishi1,2, T Fujii3, M Suzuki4, N Takano4, K Teranishi2, K Yatomi2, T Kitamura1, M Yamamoto2, S Aoki4, H Arai2. 1. From the Departments of Neuroendovascular Therapy (H.O., T.F., T.K.). 2. Neurosurgery (H.O., K.T., K.Y., M.Y., H.A.). 3. From the Departments of Neuroendovascular Therapy (H.O., T.F., T.K.) takashigreengreen@yahoo.co.jp. 4. Radiology (M.S., N.T., S.A.), Juntendo University Faculty of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The flow-diverter device has been established as a treatment procedure for large unruptured intracranial aneurysms. The purpose of this study was to compare the usefulness of Silent MR angiography and time-of-flight MRA to assess the parent artery and the embolization state of the aneurysm after a flow-diverter placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-eight large, unruptured internal carotid aneurysms in 78 patients were the subjects of this study. After 6 months of treatment, they underwent follow-up digital subtraction angiography, Silent MRA, and TOF-MRA, performed simultaneously. All images were independently reviewed by 2 neurosurgeons and 1 radiologist and rated on a 4-point scale from 1 (not visible) to 4 (excellent) to evaluate the parent artery. The aneurysmal embolization status was assessed with 2 ratings: complete or incomplete occlusion. RESULTS: The mean scores of Silent MRA and TOF-MRA regarding the parent artery were 3.18 ± 0.72 and 2.31 ± 0.86, respectively, showing a significantly better score with Silent MRA (P < .01). In the assessment of the embolization of aneurysms on Silent MRA and TOF-MRA compared with DSA, the percentages of agreement were 91.0% and 80.8%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Silent MRA is superior for visualizing blood flow images inside flow-diverter devices compared with TOF-MRA. Furthermore, Silent MRA enables the assessment of aneurysmal embolization status. Silent MRA is useful for assessing the status of large and giant unruptured internal carotid aneurysms after flow-diverter placement.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The flow-diverter device has been established as a treatment procedure for large unruptured intracranial aneurysms. The purpose of this study was to compare the usefulness of Silent MR angiography and time-of-flight MRA to assess the parent artery and the embolization state of the aneurysm after a flow-diverter placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-eight large, unruptured internal carotid aneurysms in 78 patients were the subjects of this study. After 6 months of treatment, they underwent follow-up digital subtraction angiography, Silent MRA, and TOF-MRA, performed simultaneously. All images were independently reviewed by 2 neurosurgeons and 1 radiologist and rated on a 4-point scale from 1 (not visible) to 4 (excellent) to evaluate the parent artery. The aneurysmal embolization status was assessed with 2 ratings: complete or incomplete occlusion. RESULTS: The mean scores of Silent MRA and TOF-MRA regarding the parent artery were 3.18 ± 0.72 and 2.31 ± 0.86, respectively, showing a significantly better score with Silent MRA (P < .01). In the assessment of the embolization of aneurysms on Silent MRA and TOF-MRA compared with DSA, the percentages of agreement were 91.0% and 80.8%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Silent MRA is superior for visualizing blood flow images inside flow-diverter devices compared with TOF-MRA. Furthermore, Silent MRA enables the assessment of aneurysmal embolization status. Silent MRA is useful for assessing the status of large and giant unruptured internal carotid aneurysms after flow-diverter placement.
Authors: J Mocco; Kyle M Fargen; Felipe C Albuquerque; Bernard R Bendok; Alan S Boulos; Jeffrey S Carpenter; David J Fiorella; Brian L Hoh; Jay U Howington; Kenneth M Liebman; Sabareesh K Natarajan; Ansaar T Rai; Rafael Rodriguez-Mercado; Adnan H Siddiqui; Kenneth V Snyder; Erol Veznedaroglu; L Nelson Hopkins; Elad I Levy Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Fatih Keskin; Fatih Erdi; Bülent Kaya; Necdet Poyraz; Suat Keskin; Erdal Kalkan; Orhan Ozbek; Osman Koc Journal: Neurol Res Date: 2014-10-13 Impact factor: 2.448
Authors: J-M Liu; Y Zhou; Y Li; T Li; B Leng; P Zhang; G Liang; Q Huang; P-F Yang; H Shi; J Zhang; J Wan; W He; C Liang; G Zhu; Y Xu; B Hong; X Yang; W Bai; Y Tian; H Zhang; Z Li; Q Li; R Zhao; Y Fang; K Zhao Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2018-03-29 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: H Luecking; T Engelhorn; S Lang; P Goelitz; S Kloska; K Roessler; A Doerfler Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2017-01-19 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: R Irie; M Suzuki; M Yamamoto; N Takano; Y Suga; M Hori; K Kamagata; M Takayama; M Yoshida; S Sato; N Hamasaki; H Oishi; S Aoki Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2014-12-18 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Jin Woo Choi; Hong Gee Roh; Won-Jin Moon; Na Ra Kim; Sung Gyu Moon; Chung Hwan Kang; Young Il Chun; Hyun-Seung Kang Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2011-09-27 Impact factor: 3.500
Authors: J Burel; E Gerardin; M Vannier; A Curado; M Verdalle-Cazes; N Magne; M Lefebvre; C Papagiannaki Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2022-03-03 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: P Shahrouki; R Gupta; P Belani; A Chien; A H Doshi; R De Leacy; J T Fifi; J Mocco; K Nael Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2022-06 Impact factor: 4.966
Authors: You Na Kim; Jin Wook Choi; Yong Cheol Lim; Jihye Song; Ji Hyun Park; Woo Sang Jung Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2022-01-04 Impact factor: 3.500