ArticleActa neurochirurgica2025
Risk factors for in-stent stenosis after flow-diverter implantation for intracranial aneurysm: a single center analysis of 161 consecutive patients.
Article in Acta neurochirurgica, 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.
- Comparison Between Pipeline Embolization Device and Derivo Embolization Device for the Treatment of Unruptured Cerebral Aneurysms: A Single-Center Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFlow diverters (FD) are used for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms, by redirecting flow and serving as a scaffold for endothelial coverage of the aneurysm ostium. However, in-stent stenosis has been observed in some patients treated with these devices, the cause of which and the epidemiology remaining elusive. In the current study we aimed to elucidate potential factors leading to higher degree of in-stent stenosis including gender, location, and type of FD.
methodsThe authors queried their institutional Electronic Health Record (EHR) for all patients undergoing FD for intracranial saccular aneurysms. We excluded cases where an FD was performed for a dissecting aneurysm, or other indications. We also excluded patients who had no available follow up.
resultsWe identified 161 patients undergoing FD for aneurysms, with a mean age of 57.4 (SD = 12.94) and141 (87.6%) of which were females. A total of 24 patients (14.9%) had an in-stent stenosis at a median interval of 10 months; 9 (5.6%) had a severe (i.e. symptomatic or requiring treatment) stenosis. When subsetting for females, we found that females with any in-stent stenosis were significantly younger compared to those without stenosis (51.045, SD = 15.7 vs 58.5, SD = 12.31, p = 0.013). Females with severe in-stent stenosis were even younger (42.2, SD = 14.2 vs 58.3, SD = 12.54; p < 0.001) compared to the rest of the females. Patients presenting with ruptured aneurysm had a higher rate of severe in-stent stenosis (16.7%, n = 4/24, p = 0.014). Regarding devices, patients who underwent treatment with a high-braid FD were more likely to have severe in-stent stenosis (18.8%, n = 3/16; p = 0.016).
conclusionOur findings indicate that younger age, presentation with rupture and high-braid FD may be associated with higher risk of severe in-stent stenosis. These findings may provide more insight into the selection of treatment modality and/or device in patients undergoing management of their cerebral aneurysms.
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.