Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34470100›Full record

ArticleJournal of cerebrovascular and endovascular neurosurgery2021

Endovascular treatment of residual or recurrent intracranial aneurysms after surgical clipping.

Nilton Rocha da Silva Júnior, Felipe Padovani Trivelato, Guilherme Seizem Nakiri, Marco Túlio Salles Rezende, Luís Henrique de Castro-Afonso, Thiago Giansante Abud, José Ricardo Vanzin, Luciano Bambini Manzato, Alexandre Cordeiro Ulhôa, Daniel Giansante Abud and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cerebrovascular and endovascular neurosurgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Treatment of a ruptured shallow trilobed cerebral aneurysm with the novel saccular endovascular aneurysm lattice (SEAL) device: A case report with one year follow-up.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2023
    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

11 authors.

Nilton Rocha da Silva JúniorDivision of Interventional Neuroradiology, Felício Rocho Hospital, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Felipe Padovani TrivelatoDivision of Interventional Neuroradiology, Felício Rocho Hospital, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Guilherme Seizem NakiriDivision of Interventional Neuroradiology, Hospital das Clínicas, Medical School, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brazil.
Marco Túlio Salles RezendeDivision of Interventional Neuroradiology, Felício Rocho Hospital, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Luís Henrique de Castro-AfonsoDivision of Interventional Neuroradiology, Hospital das Clínicas, Medical School, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brazil.
Thiago Giansante AbudDivision of Interventional Neuroradiology, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, Brazil.
José Ricardo VanzinDivision of Interventional Neuroradiology, Hospital de Clínicas, Passo Fundo, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.
Luciano Bambini ManzatoDivision of Interventional Neuroradiology, Hospital de Clínicas, Passo Fundo, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.
Alexandre Cordeiro UlhôaDivision of Interventional Neuroradiology, Felício Rocho Hospital, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Daniel Giansante AbudDivision of Interventional Neuroradiology, Hospital das Clínicas, Medical School, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brazil.
Alexandre Varella GiannettiDepartment of Neurosurgery, Hospital das Clínicas, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTotal aneurysm occlusion is crucial for the prevention of rebleeding of a ruptured aneurysm or to avoid rupture of an unruptured lesion. Both surgical and endovascular embolization fail to achieve complete aneurysm occlusion in all the cases. The objective of the study was to establish the safety and efficacy of endovascular treatment for previously clipped residual or recurrent aneurysms.

methodsThis was an observational, retrospective study of patients harboring incompletely occluded intracranial aneurysms after clipping who underwent endovascular treatment. Patients were treated using 4 different techniques: (1) simple coiling, (2) balloon remodeling, (3) stent-assisted coiling, and (4) flow diversion. Analyses were performed to identify predictors of total aneurysm occlusion, recanalization and complications.

resultsBetween May 2010 and September 2018, 70 patients harboring incompletely occluded intracranial aneurysms after clipping met the inclusion criteria in 5 centers. The mean residual aneurysm size was 7.5 mm. Fifty-nine aneurysms were unruptured. Total aneurysm occlusion was achieved in 75.3% of the aneurysms after 1 year. All aneurysms treated with flow diversion revealed complete occlusion according to control angiography. Recanalization was observed in 14.5%. Permanent morbidity and mortality occurred in 2.9% and 1.4% of the patients, respectively.

conclusionsEndovascular treatment of recurrent or residual aneurysms after surgical clipping was safe and efficacious. Flow diversion seems to be associated with better anatomical results. A more rigid study, a larger group of patients, and longterm follow-up are required to provide stronger conclusions about the best approach for residual clipped aneurysms.

Indexed as

AneurysmClippingEmbolizationEndovascular

Identifiers

PMID34470100
PMCPMC8497721

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.