J K Lee1, J H Choi2, B-S Kim3, Y S Shin1. 1. From the Departments of Neurosurgery (J.K.L., J.H.C., Y.S.S.). 2. From the Departments of Neurosurgery (J.K.L., J.H.C., Y.S.S.) bivalvia98@gmail.com. 3. Radiology (B.-S.K.), Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Cranial nerve symptoms, including visual impairment and ophthalmoplegia, are one of the most common presentations of very large and giant (≥15 mm) ICA aneurysms. In this study, we evaluated the treatment outcomes of flow diversion and conventional coiling in terms of recovery from cranial nerve symptoms and postoperative complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-nine patients with unruptured ICA aneurysms of >15 mm who were treated with flow diversion or conventional coiling between December 2009 and December 2020 were retrospectively evaluated. We compared the radiologic and clinical outcomes, including recovery from cranial nerve symptoms, between the 2 groups. RESULTS: Twenty-eight of 49 patients (57.1%) treated with flow diversion and 10 of 30 patients (33.3%) treated with conventional coiling initially presented with cranial nerve symptoms (P = .068). In the clinical follow-up, the symptom recovery rate was significantly higher in those treated with flow diversion (15 [50%] versus 3 [25%] with conventional coiling, P = .046). Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that flow diversion was significantly associated with symptom recovery (OR, 7.425; 95% CI, 1.091-50.546; P = .040). The overall postoperative complication rate was similar (flow diversion, 10 [20.4%]; conventional coiling, 6 [20.0%], P = .965), though fatal hemorrhagic complications occurred only in patients with intradurally located aneurysms treated with flow diversion (4 [8.2%] versus 0 [0.0%] with coiling, P = .108). CONCLUSIONS: Flow diversion without coiling for very large and giant ICA aneurysms yielded a higher rate of recovery from cranial nerve symptoms, but it may be related to an increased hemorrhagic complication rate, especially for intradurally located aneurysms.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Cranial nerve symptoms, including visual impairment and ophthalmoplegia, are one of the most common presentations of very large and giant (≥15 mm) ICA aneurysms. In this study, we evaluated the treatment outcomes of flow diversion and conventional coiling in terms of recovery from cranial nerve symptoms and postoperative complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-nine patients with unruptured ICA aneurysms of >15 mm who were treated with flow diversion or conventional coiling between December 2009 and December 2020 were retrospectively evaluated. We compared the radiologic and clinical outcomes, including recovery from cranial nerve symptoms, between the 2 groups. RESULTS: Twenty-eight of 49 patients (57.1%) treated with flow diversion and 10 of 30 patients (33.3%) treated with conventional coiling initially presented with cranial nerve symptoms (P = .068). In the clinical follow-up, the symptom recovery rate was significantly higher in those treated with flow diversion (15 [50%] versus 3 [25%] with conventional coiling, P = .046). Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that flow diversion was significantly associated with symptom recovery (OR, 7.425; 95% CI, 1.091-50.546; P = .040). The overall postoperative complication rate was similar (flow diversion, 10 [20.4%]; conventional coiling, 6 [20.0%], P = .965), though fatal hemorrhagic complications occurred only in patients with intradurally located aneurysms treated with flow diversion (4 [8.2%] versus 0 [0.0%] with coiling, P = .108). CONCLUSIONS: Flow diversion without coiling for very large and giant ICA aneurysms yielded a higher rate of recovery from cranial nerve symptoms, but it may be related to an increased hemorrhagic complication rate, especially for intradurally located aneurysms.
Authors: G Durner; M Piano; P Lenga; D Mielke; C Hohaus; S Guhl; N Maldaner; J K Burkhardt; M T Pedro; J Lehmberg; D Rufenacht; P Bijlenga; N Etminan; J K Krauss; E Boccardi; D Hänggi; P Vajkoczy; Julius Dengler Journal: Acta Neurochir (Wien) Date: 2018-06-09 Impact factor: 2.216
Authors: Tibor Becske; David F Kallmes; Isil Saatci; Cameron G McDougall; István Szikora; Giuseppe Lanzino; Christopher J Moran; Henry H Woo; Demetrius K Lopes; Aaron L Berez; Daniel J Cher; Adnan H Siddiqui; Elad I Levy; Felipe C Albuquerque; David J Fiorella; Zsolt Berentei; Miklós Marosfoi; Saruhan H Cekirge; Peter K Nelson Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-02-15 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Jacoba P Greving; Marieke J H Wermer; Robert D Brown; Akio Morita; Seppo Juvela; Masahiro Yonekura; Toshihiro Ishibashi; James C Torner; Takeo Nakayama; Gabriël J E Rinkel; Ale Algra Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2013-11-27 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: L I van Oel; W J van Rooij; M Sluzewski; G N Beute; P N M Lohle; J P P Peluso Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-08-23 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Mario Zanaty; Nohra Chalouhi; Robert M Starke; Guilherme Barros; Mark Philip Saigh; Eric Winthrop Schwartz; Norman Ajiboye; Stavropoula I Tjoumakaris; David Hasan; Robert H Rosenwasser; Pascal Jabbour Journal: Stroke Date: 2014-07-22 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Nohra Chalouhi; Stavropoula Tjoumakaris; Robert M Starke; L Fernando Gonzalez; Ciro Randazzo; David Hasan; Jeffrey F McMahon; Saurabh Singhal; Lea A Moukarzel; Aaron S Dumont; Robert Rosenwasser; Pascal Jabbour Journal: Stroke Date: 2013-05-30 Impact factor: 7.914