ReviewBrain & spine2025
The morphological, clinical, and prognostic factors in the management of giant anterior communicating artery aneurysms: A systematic review of cases.
Review in Brain & spine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Giant intracranial aneurysms (GIAs) of the anterior communicating artery (AComm) are rare and challenging to treat due to their distinct angioarchitecture. Research question: To review demographic, morphological, clinical, and prognostic factors in the treatment of giant AComm aneurysms to inform decision-making. Materials and methods: Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched for records examining cases diagnosed with giant AComm aneurysms. The study type, sample size, patient age, aneurysm site, aneurysm size, presenting complaints, and treatment modality were tabulated, and methodological quality was assessed. Additionally, two cases from our institution were included. Results: The data from 24 retrieved records, including 45 cases (60% treated with direct clipping/clip reconstruction, 20% with surgical bypass±trapping, and 16% with endovascular/combined methods) were obtained. The mean age was 52 years with an overall male preponderance (3:1). 73% presented with symptoms; mostly visual impairment/loss and subarachnoid hemorrhage. 82% had favorable outcomes (mRS 0-2). 56% had a mean maximum diameter between 25 and 30 mm. Cases treated by direct clipping/reconstruction were primarily ruptured, while cases treated by surgical bypass/trapping were unruptured or asymptomatic. Endovascular/combined methods were utilized for only few cases. Discussion and conclusion: Immediate suspicion is warranted for visual impairment with headaches in adults or seizures in the elderly. Direct clipping is the first-line treatment for ruptured cases closely followed by surgical bypass and trapping for unruptured cases. There is limited data on endovascular/combined methods. Evidence from case reports/series should be interpreted with caution. Both inter-modality and intra-modality nuances exist.
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.