ArticleJournal of translational medicine2019
Hemodynamic impacts of flow diverter devices on the ophthalmic artery.
Article in Journal of translational medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ophthalmic Artery Morphology and Hemodynamics in Ocular Ischemic Syndrome: A Computational Fluid Dynamics and Particle Image Velocimetry Study.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2026Article
- Comparison of flow diverter devices and endovascular coiling to treat intracranial aneurysms with an incorporated branch: A retrospective cohort study.The Journal of international medical research · 2025Article
- Patency of the lenticulostriate and Pontine arteries after stenting of the intracranial arteries.Neurosurgical review · 2025Article
- Long-term ophthalmologic symptoms after treatment of intracranial aneurysms by ophthalmic artery-covering flow diverter.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2025Article
- Systematic evaluation of neuro-ophthalmic outcomes of the ophthalmic artery covered by flow-diverter.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Review
- Patency of Branch Vessels After Pipeline Embolization: Comparison of Various Branches.Frontiers in neurology · 2019Article
- Perforator-sparing basilar artery reconstruction normalizes pathological hemodynamics in vertebrobasilar dolichoectasia: a CFD study.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFlow diverter devices are increasingly used for endovascular treatment of internal carotid artery aneurysms. Treatment of ophthalmic segment aneurysms with flow diverter devices also includes coverage of the ophthalmic artery but may result in complications. It is unclear, however, whether these devices mechanically block blood flow in the ophthalmic artery. Also unclear is the relationship between deployment of a flow diverter device and post-treatment occlusion. We studied hemodynamic changes in the ophthalmic artery after deployment of a flow diverter device to determine the relationship between those changes and post-stent occlusion of the artery.
methodsWe analyzed hemodynamic modifications in the ophthalmic artery in 21 patients (19 women, 2 men; mean age 53.43 ± 7.32 years) treated by a single pipeline embolization device. Patient-specific geometries were determined from three-dimensional digital subtraction angiography and the stenting process was simulated. Computational fluid dynamics technology was used to analyze the change in ophthalmic artery hemodynamics. We compared pre-treatment and post-treatment flow velocity of the ophthalmic artery.
resultsAmong the 21 patients with aneurysms located in the ophthalmic segment, no ophthalmic artery occlusion was found during immediate or follow-up angiography. Post-stent flow velocity in the ophthalmic artery decreased from 0.35 ± 0.19 to 0.33 ± 0.20 m/s, with the difference not being statistically significant (P = 0.106).
conclusionOur results showed no significant change in ophthalmic artery blood flow after pipeline embolization device deployment. Hence, post-stent occlusion of the ophthalmic artery could not be explained by reduced blood flow. Delayed thrombosis and neointimal formation maybe the keys to ophthalmic artery occlusion and need further investigation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.