ArticleClinical neuroradiology2017
Comparison of Intracranial Aneurysms Treated by 2-D Versus 3-D Coils: A Matched-Pairs Analysis.
Article in Clinical neuroradiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Feasibility and Effectiveness of 3D Coil Framing in the Embolization of Pulmonary Arteriovenous Malformations and Visceral Artery Aneurysms and Pseudoaneurysms.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- TARGET® Intracranial Aneurysm Coiling Prospective Multicenter Registry: Final Analysis of Peri-Procedural and Long-Term Safety and Efficacy Results.Frontiers in neurology · 2019Article
- Acute rerupture after coil embolization of ruptured intracranial saccular aneurysms: A literature review.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveKnowledge on the influence of 2D and 3D coils to occlude intracranial aneurysms is poor. Therefore, aim of our analysis was to evaluate whether the use of 3-D versus 2-D coils alone may improve the efficacy of endovascular aneurysm treatment. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe performed a matched pair analysis comparing aneurysms treated by 3-D coils as initial "framing" coils to aneurysms treated exclusively by 2-D coils. Number of coils, implanted coil length/volume, and associated packing density were calculated. Aneurysmal occlusion was assessed and monitored 6 months (DSA; magnetic resonance angiography (MRA)) and 18 months (MRA) after embolization. Periprocedural complications and retreatment rate of each group were analyzed.
resultsOur retrospective analysis revealed 50 pairs. Concerning the 3-D group, number of coils (353 in total, median 7; p = 0.002), implanted coil length (55.69 ± 48.4 cm), implanted coil length per volume (5.92 mm/mm
conclusionInitial use of 3-D coils revealed a higher packing density and a higher long-term occlusion. Therefore, we recommend initial use of 3-D coils.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26104272What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.