Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26585252›Full record

ArticleAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2016

Intravenous C-Arm Conebeam CT Angiography following Long-Term Flow-Diverter Implantation: Technologic Evaluation and Preliminary Results.

S C H Yu, K T Lee, T W W Lau, G K C Wong, V K Y Pang, K Y Chan

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. A technical note on intra-arterial cone-beam computed tomography for the evaluation of flow-diverter stents: Image quality differences between diluted and non-diluted contrast medium.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2020
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

S C H YuFrom the Department of Imaging and Interventional Radiology (S.C.H.Y., K.T.L., T.W.W.L.) simonyu@cuhk.edu.hk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8715-5026
K T LeeFrom the Department of Imaging and Interventional Radiology (S.C.H.Y., K.T.L., T.W.W.L.).ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5441-8507
T W W LauFrom the Department of Imaging and Interventional Radiology (S.C.H.Y., K.T.L., T.W.W.L.).ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2820-1440
G K C WongDivision of Neurosurgery (G.K.C.W.), Department of Surgery, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Prince of Wales Hospital, Shatin, Hong Kong SAR.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6078-2548
V K Y PangDepartment of Neurosurgery (V.K.Y.P.), Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital, Hong Kong, SAR.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0121-4791
K Y ChanDepartment of Neurosurgery (K.Y.C.), Kwong Wah Hospital, Yaumatei, Kowloon, Hong Kong, SAR.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6750-2932
Society of Interventional Radiology · USChinese University of Hong Kong · HKKwong Wah Hospital · CNPamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeA noninvasive investigation with high spatial resolution and without metal artifacts is necessary for long-term imaging follow-up after flow-diverter implantation. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic value of conebeam CT angiography with intravenous contrast enhancement in the assessment of vascular status following implantation of the Pipeline Embolization Device and to analyze the preliminary results of vascular status following long-term Pipeline Embolization Device implantation. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis was an ongoing prospective study of consecutive patients with intracranial aneurysms treated with the Pipeline Embolization Device. Patients with a modified Rankin Scale score of 4-5 were excluded. The median and interquartile range of the time interval of Pipeline Embolization Device implantation to conebeam CT angiography with intravenous contrast enhancement were 56.6 and 42.9-62.4 months, respectively. Conebeam CT angiography with intravenous contrast enhancement was performed with the patient fully conscious, by using a C-arm CT with a flat panel detector.

resultsThere were 34 patients and 34 vascular segments. In all 34 cases, contrast effect and image quality were good and not substantially different from those of intra-arterial conebeam CTA. Metal artifacts occurred in all 14 cases with coil masses; the Pipeline Embolization Device was obscured in 3 cases. In all 34 cases, there was no residual aneurysm, no vascular occlusion, 1 vascular stenosis (50%), good Pipeline Embolization Device apposition to the vessel, and no Pipeline Embolization Device-induced calcification. All 28 Pipeline Embolization Device-covered side branches were patent.

conclusionsConebeam CT angiography with intravenous contrast enhancement is potentially promising and useful for effective evaluation of the vascular status following intracranial flow diverters. The Pipeline Embolization Device for intracranial aneurysms is probably safe and promising for long-term placement, with favorable morphologic outcome and without delayed complications.

Indexed as

AdultAgedArtifactsCerebral AngiographyEmbolization, TherapeuticFemaleHumansIntracranial AneurysmMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesTomography, X-Ray ComputedTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID26585252
PMCPMC7960118
OpenAlexW2179427283

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.