Florian Hagen1, Ansgar Berlis2, Martin Skalej3, Christoph Johannes Maurer2. 1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Universitätsklinikum Augsburg, Stenglinstraße 2, 86156, Augsburg, Germany. flo.hagen@web.de. 2. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Universitätsklinikum Augsburg, Stenglinstraße 2, 86156, Augsburg, Germany. 3. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Universitätsklinikum Magdeburg, Leipzigerstraße 44, 39120, Magdeburg, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: With the introduction of new devices and the development of approved devices, endovascular techniques are more and more considered as a treatment option for middle cerebral artery aneurysms (MCA). In this study, we present data on ruptured MCA aneurysms that were treated endovascularly in our hospital. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In a retrospective case series of ruptured MCA bifurcation aneurysms, 118 (94%) cases were managed endovascularly between May 2008 and July 2017. Most were managed with coiling (= 62) and the remaining were managed with stent-assisted-coiling (= 35) and endovascular flow disruptor (WEB-device) (= 21). We measured the clinical outcome at the time of discharge and long-term follow-up on the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) and evaluated the rates of periprocedural complications and retreatment. RESULTS: A good clinical outcome (mRS 0-2) at discharge was achieved in 58.5% of these cases. Mortality rate was 19.5%. Nine aneurysms required retreatment. Eighty-three percent demonstrated a good clinical outcome at long-term follow-up (mRS 0-2). In total, 6 (5.1%) procedure-related complications and 10 (8.5%) disease-related complications occurred. No significant difference between reintervention, complications or outcome was found between the employment of different devices (P > 0.05). Endovascular treatment of ruptured MCA aneurysms at our practice showed similar morbidity and mortality to data published about surgical clipping. CONCLUSION: The endovascular device evolution permits a feasible and safe treatment of ruptured MCA bifurcation aneurysms. Endovascular treatment can therefore be considered as an alternative treatment option to microsurgery for this type of aneurysm.
PURPOSE: With the introduction of new devices and the development of approved devices, endovascular techniques are more and more considered as a treatment option for middle cerebral artery aneurysms (MCA). In this study, we present data on ruptured MCA aneurysms that were treated endovascularly in our hospital. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In a retrospective case series of ruptured MCA bifurcation aneurysms, 118 (94%) cases were managed endovascularly between May 2008 and July 2017. Most were managed with coiling (= 62) and the remaining were managed with stent-assisted-coiling (= 35) and endovascular flow disruptor (WEB-device) (= 21). We measured the clinical outcome at the time of discharge and long-term follow-up on the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) and evaluated the rates of periprocedural complications and retreatment. RESULTS: A good clinical outcome (mRS 0-2) at discharge was achieved in 58.5% of these cases. Mortality rate was 19.5%. Nine aneurysms required retreatment. Eighty-three percent demonstrated a good clinical outcome at long-term follow-up (mRS 0-2). In total, 6 (5.1%) procedure-related complications and 10 (8.5%) disease-related complications occurred. No significant difference between reintervention, complications or outcome was found between the employment of different devices (P > 0.05). Endovascular treatment of ruptured MCA aneurysms at our practice showed similar morbidity and mortality to data published about surgical clipping. CONCLUSION: The endovascular device evolution permits a feasible and safe treatment of ruptured MCA bifurcation aneurysms. Endovascular treatment can therefore be considered as an alternative treatment option to microsurgery for this type of aneurysm.
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: David Hassanein Berro; Vincent L'Allinec; Anne Pasco-Papon; Evelyne Emery; Mada Berro; Charlotte Barbier; Henri-Dominique Fournier; Thomas Gaberel Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2019-09-20 Impact factor: 5.115
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: Jean Raymond; François Guilbert; Alain Weill; Stavros A Georganos; Louis Juravsky; Anick Lambert; Julie Lamoureux; Miguel Chagnon; Daniel Roy Journal: Stroke Date: 2003-05-29 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Ana Rodríguez-Hernández; Michael E Sughrue; Sina Akhavan; Julian Habdank-Kolaczkowski; Michael T Lawton Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Reza Dashti; Juha Hernesniemi; Mika Niemelä; Jaakko Rinne; Matti Porras; Martin Lehecka; Hu Shen; Baki S Albayrak; Hanna Lehto; Päivi Koroknay-Pál; Rafael Sillero de Oliveira; Giancarlo Perra; Antti Ronkainen; Timo Koivisto; Juha E Jääskeläinen Journal: Surg Neurol Date: 2007-05
Authors: S Claiborne Johnston; Christopher F Dowd; Randall T Higashida; Michael T Lawton; Gary R Duckwiler; Daryl R Gress Journal: Stroke Date: 2007-11-29 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Alexander Romagna; Barbara Ladisich; Christoph Schwartz; Peter A Winkler; Al-Schameri Abdul Rahman Journal: Interv Neuroradiol Date: 2018-10-28 Impact factor: 1.610
Authors: Reade De Leacy; Devin V Bageac; Neha Siddiqui; Richard J Bellon; Min S Park; Clemens M Schirmer; Keith B Woodward; Osama O Zaidat; Alejandro M Spiotta Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2022-02-07 Impact factor: 4.003