Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36081876›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neurology2022

Endovascular treatment of intracranial vertebral artery unruptured dissecting aneurysms: Comparison of flow diversion and stent-assisted coiling or stenting alone.

Li Li, Gang-Qin Xu, Hui-Li Gao, Bu-Lang Gao, Kun Zhang, Zi-Liang Wang, Tian-Xiao Li

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Comparative meta-analysis of endovascular strategies for intracranial dissecting aneurysms: Flow diverters versus stents with or without coiling.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Li LiHenan Provincial People's Hospital, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.
Gang-Qin XuHenan Provincial People's Hospital, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.
Hui-Li GaoHenan Provincial People's Hospital, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.
Bu-Lang GaoHenan Provincial People's Hospital, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.
Kun ZhangHenan Provincial People's Hospital, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.
Zi-Liang WangHenan Provincial People's Hospital, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.
Tian-Xiao LiHenan Provincial People's Hospital, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.
Zhengzhou University · CNHenan Provincial People's Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate the effect and safety of flow diverters in the treatment of unruptured dissecting intracranial aneurysms of the vertebral artery in comparison with stent-assisted coiling or stenting alone. Materials and methods: Patients with unruptured dissecting intracranial aneurysms of the vertebral artery treated with the flow diverter, stent-assisted coiling, or stenting alone were retrospectively enrolled. The clinical data were analyzed and compared. Results: Twenty-five patients were enrolled in the flow diversion group and 42 patients in the stenting group. Twenty-six flow diverters were deployed in the flow diversion group. Immediate angiography revealed contrast agent retention within the aneurysm cavity in all patients. In the stenting group, 48 stents were deployed, and immediate angiographic outcome showed O'Kelly-Marotta (OKM) grade D in 18 (42.9%) aneurysms, grade C in 16 (38.1%), and grade B in 8 (19.0%). Periprocedural ischemic complications of thrombosis occurred in two (4.8%) patients and were treated with thrombolysis. In the flow diversion group, 19 (76%) patients underwent angiographic follow-up 3-46 (median 24) months after the procedure, with the OKM grade D in 11 (57.9%) patients, C in two (10.5%), and B in six (31.6%). The aneurysm recurrence rate was zero, and all diverters remained patent. Asymptomatic instent stenosis occurred in two (10.5%) patients. In seven of the ten patients with mild or moderate parent artery stenosis before the procedure who experienced angiographic follow-up, the stenosis was improved in five (71.4%) patients. In the stenting group, angiographic follow-up was carried out in 33 (78.6%) patients 6-58 months (median 34) after the procedure, with OKM grade D in 22 (66.7%) patients, grade C in five (15.2%), grade B in three (9.1%), and aneurysm recurrence (grade B, with increased contrast agent into the aneurysm cavity) in three (9.1%). Five (16.7%) patients experienced asymptomatic instent stenosis, and six of the 12 patients (50%) with parent artery stenosis were improved. Conclusion: Flow diverters with or without selective adjunctive coiling for the treatment of unruptured dissecting intracranial aneurysms of the vertebral artery may be safe and effective with good occlusion effects not inferior to those of stent-assisted coiling and stenting alone even though the long-term effect still warrants confirmation.

Indexed as

dissectingeffectflow diverterintracranial aneurysmsvertebral artery

Identifiers

PMID36081876
PMCPMC9445568
OpenAlexW4292714956

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.