ArticleNeurosurgical review2024
Microsurgical clipping versus endovascular therapy for treating patients with middle cerebral artery aneurysms presenting with neurological ischemic symptoms.
Article in Neurosurgical review, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of feasibility and efficacy of microsurgery and interventional techniques in the management of unruptured middle cerebral artery aneurysms with a history of transient ischemic attack.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Single-Stage Microsurgical Clipping of Multiple Intracranial Aneurysms in a Patient with Cerebral Atherosclerosis: A Case Report and Review of Surgical Management.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Advancing aneurysm management: the potential of AI and machine learning in enhancing safety and predictive accuracy.Neurosurgical review · 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Studies comparing different treatment methods in patients with middle cerebral artery (MCA) aneurysms in different subgroups of onset symptoms are lacking. It is necessary to explore the safety and efficacy of open surgical treatment and endovascular therapy in patients with MCA aneurysms in a specific population. This study aimed to compare microsurgical clipping versus endovascular therapy regarding complication rates and outcomes in patients with MCA aneurysms presenting with neurological ischemic symptoms. This was a retrospective cohort study in which 9656 patients with intracranial aneurysms were screened between January 2014 and July 2022. Further, 130 eligible patients were enrolled. The primary outcome was the incidence of serious adverse events (SAEs) within 30 days of treatment, whereas secondary outcomes included postprocedural target vessel-related stroke, disabling stroke or death, mortality, and aneurysm occlusion rate. Among the 130 included patients, 45 were treated with endovascular therapy and 85 with microsurgical clipping. The primary outcome of the incidence of SAEs within 30 days of treatment was significantly higher in the clipping group [clipping: 23.5%(20/85) vs endovascular: 8.9%(4/45), adjusted OR:4.05, 95% CI:1.20-13.70; P = 0.024]. The incidence of any neurological complications related to the treatment was significantly higher in the clipping group [clipping:32.9%(28/85) vs endovascular:15.6%(7/45); adjusted OR:3.49, 95%CI:1.18-10.26; P = 0.023]. Postprocedural target vessel-related stroke, disabling stroke or death, mortality rate, and complete occlusion rate did not differ significantly between the two groups. Endovascular therapy seemed to be safer in treating patients with MCA aneurysms presenting with neurological ischemic symptoms compared with microsurgical clipping, with a significantly lower incidence of SAEs within 30 days of treatment and any neurological complications related to the treatment during follow-up.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38995460What 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.