ArticleNeurologia medico-chirurgica2022
Comparison of Pipeline Embolization and Coil Embolization for the Treatment of Large Unruptured Paraclinoid Aneurysms.
Article in Neurologia medico-chirurgica, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of pipeline embolization device vs. traditional coils in embolization of intracranial aneurysms: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2022Pooled it
- Conventional endovascular treatment and flow diverter for unruptured small- and medium-sized paraophthalmic segment aneurysms.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
- Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Endovascular Therapy Effectiveness for Unruptured Saccular Intracranial Aneurysms.Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The efficacy of flow diversion (FD) in the treatment of paraclinoid aneurysms has been established. The pipeline embolization device (PED) is one of the most commonly used FD devices. Coil embolization is also useful for treating paraclinoid aneurysms. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of PED treatment and coil embolization for large unruptured paraclinoid aneurysms. This was a single-center, retrospective study of large unruptured paraclinoid aneurysms treated endovascularly between 2009 and 2019 (coil embolization between 2009 and 2015, and PED between 2015 and 2019). Cases with a follow-up period of less than 1 year and recurrence after coil embolization were excluded. The treatment outcomes between coil embolization and PED were compared. We investigated 45 patients with 45 large unruptured paraclinoid aneurysms treated by endovascular surgery in our institution. Twenty-four patients were treated with coil embolization and 21 with PED. In the PED group, the device cost was significantly lower (2,770.4 ± 699.5 vs. 1941.2 ± 552.8 [1000 yen], P = 0.03), procedure duration was significantly shorter (155.4 ± 66.7 vs. 95.1 ± 35.4 min, P <0.01), and the numbers of re-treatments were lower than those in the coil embolization group (41.7 vs. 14.3%, P = 0.05). Both PED and coil embolization were effective and safe for large unruptured paraclinoid aneurysms, and their treatment results were similar. The PED is more beneficial because of its lower cost, shorter procedure duration, and fewer retreatments, and is therefore more useful for the treatment of large unruptured paraclinoid aneurysms.
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.