ArticleAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2025
A Proposed Grading Scale Based on Radiographic Imaging for Wall Apposition to Estimate Neurologic Complications after Flow Diverter Treatment.
Article in AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeThe evaluation of wall apposition following flow diverter (FD) treatment remains poorly defined. This study aims to establish a radiographic grading scale for wall apposition after FD deployment and to investigate its association with FD-related neurologic complications. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study included patients treated with the Pipeline Embolization Device (PED). A wall apposition grading scale (grades I-IV) was developed based on radiographic imaging, incorporating anatomic location and the degree of malapposition: grade I, perfect wall apposition; grade II, mild malapposition; grade III, moderate malapposition; and grade IV, severe malapposition. Cases were categorized into 2 groups: complete wall apposition (grade I) and malapposition (grades II-IV). The association between malapposition and neurologic complications was further analyzed.
resultsA total of 197 PED cases were included. Incomplete wall apposition was observed in 29 cases (14.7%), while 168 cases (85.3%) demonstrated complete wall apposition (grade I). In the malapposition group, 13 cases (6.6%) were classified as grade II, 11 cases (5.6%) as grade III, and 5 cases (2.5%) as grade IV. FD-related perioperative and follow-up neurologic complications occurred in 10.3% and 13.8% of the malapposition group, respectively, compared with 1.8% and 1.2% in the complete wall apposition group (
conclusionsThe proposed grading scale is a feasible and practical tool for assessing wall apposition after FD treatment. Neurologic complications are significantly more likely in cases with moderate to severe malapposition (grades III and IV).
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.