Yang Sun1, Benlin Wan2, Qi Li2, Tang Li1, Ge Huang1, Wenchao Zhang1, Jianghua Yang1, Xiaoguang Tong3. 1. Department of Graduate School, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China. 2. Department of Graduate School, Nan Kai University, Tianjin, China. 3. Department of Graduate School, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China; Department of Neurosurgery, Tianjin Huanhu Hospital, Tianjin, China. Electronic address: tongxg@aliyun.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Coiling and flow diversion are established endovascular techniques for treatment of cavernous carotid aneurysms (CCAs). We performed a systematic review of published series on endovascular treatment of CCAs in order to assess the efficacy and safety between coiling and flow diversion. METHODS: We conducted a computerized search of PubMed, MEDLINE, and Web of Science electronic databases for reports on endovascular treatment of CCAs from 1990 to 2019. Comparisons were made in complete occlusion rate, improvement of symptoms rate and intraoperative complication rate between coiling and flow diversion. RESULTS: Fourteen studies with 736 patients were included in this systematic review. Five hundred ninety-4 patients underwent coiling, 142 patients underwent flow diversion. The complete occlusion rate in the coiling group was significantly lower than that in the flow division group (odds ratio .37, 95%CI .16-.83, P < .00001), a forest plot did not reveal any significant differences in the improvement of symptoms rate or intraoperative complication rate following coiling and flow diversion. Complete occlusion rate was significantly lower in the coiling group (53%, 95%CI .40-.67) compared with the flow diversion group (74%, 95%CI .55-.94). Improvement of symptoms was significantly lower in the coiling group (54%, 95%CI .46-.63) compared with the flow diversion group (92%, 95%CI .85-.99). Coiling group had lower intraoperative complication rate (9%, 95%CI .06-.12) compared with flow division group (36%, 95%CI .25-.47). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with coiling, the use of flow diversion for the treatment of CCAs may increase complete occlusion rate, and improvement of symptoms rate, but it also raised intraoperative complication rate. Due to the lack of high quality control research, further randomized controlled trials are needed to verify our conclusions.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Coiling and flow diversion are established endovascular techniques for treatment of cavernous carotid aneurysms (CCAs). We performed a systematic review of published series on endovascular treatment of CCAs in order to assess the efficacy and safety between coiling and flow diversion. METHODS: We conducted a computerized search of PubMed, MEDLINE, and Web of Science electronic databases for reports on endovascular treatment of CCAs from 1990 to 2019. Comparisons were made in complete occlusion rate, improvement of symptoms rate and intraoperative complication rate between coiling and flow diversion. RESULTS: Fourteen studies with 736 patients were included in this systematic review. Five hundred ninety-4 patients underwent coiling, 142 patients underwent flow diversion. The complete occlusion rate in the coiling group was significantly lower than that in the flow division group (odds ratio .37, 95%CI .16-.83, P < .00001), a forest plot did not reveal any significant differences in the improvement of symptoms rate or intraoperative complication rate following coiling and flow diversion. Complete occlusion rate was significantly lower in the coiling group (53%, 95%CI .40-.67) compared with the flow diversion group (74%, 95%CI .55-.94). Improvement of symptoms was significantly lower in the coiling group (54%, 95%CI .46-.63) compared with the flow diversion group (92%, 95%CI .85-.99). Coiling group had lower intraoperative complication rate (9%, 95%CI .06-.12) compared with flow division group (36%, 95%CI .25-.47). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with coiling, the use of flow diversion for the treatment of CCAs may increase complete occlusion rate, and improvement of symptoms rate, but it also raised intraoperative complication rate. Due to the lack of high quality control research, further randomized controlled trials are needed to verify our conclusions.
Authors: Michael Karl Fehrenbach; Eric Dietel; Tim Wende; Johannes Kasper; Caroline Sander; Florian Wilhelmy; Ulf Quaeschling; Juergen Meixensberger; Ulf Nestler Journal: Brain Sci Date: 2022-02-28