ArticleNeurosurgical review2025
Comparison of Tubridge and Pipeline Embolisation Devices in intracranial aneurysms: a multicentre, propensity-matching analysis on the patency of branch vessels.
Article in Neurosurgical review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To compare the impact of two flow diverter devices (Pipeline Embolization Device [PED] and Tubridge Embolization Device [TED]) on branch vessels patency in intracranial aneurysm treatment, with specific focus on branch vessel outcomes and clinical safety. A retrospective analysis of 320 patients with 430 aneurysms and 602 covered branches treated with PED or TED was conducted. Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics and group comparisons. Potential predictors of aneurysm and branch occlusion were identified through univariate analysis followed by multivariate logistic regression. Propensity score matching was adjusted for baseline discrepancies, and the comparative analysis examined stent efficacy on branch vessels patency and clinical outcomes. Stenosis or occlusion rates were 6.1% for the ophthalmic artery (OA), 31.6% for the posterior communicating artery (PComA), 0.9% for the anterior choroidal artery (AChA), 40.5% for the anterior cerebral artery (ACA), and 0% for the middle cerebral (MCA), lenticulostriate (LSA), posterior inferior cerebellar (PICA), and anterior inferior cerebellar arteries (AICA). Before propensity score matching, branch vessels patency rates did not significantly differ between the PED and TED groups. After matching, 109 pairs were identified. No significant differences in angiographic outcomes for distal and proximal branch vessels regarding occlusion or stenosis were observed between groups (P values > 0.999 and 0.332, respectively). Branch obliteration was mostly asymptomatic. PED and TED showed comparable safety profiles and branch vessel patency rates. These findings indicate that FD treatment may be clinically safe for selected ICA and VA cases requiring branch vessel coverage.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39951165What 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.