ArticleCardiovascular and interventional radiology2025
Aneurysm Specific Working Projections for the Endovascular Treatment of Intracranial Aneurysms-Same Aneurysm, Different Working Projections?"
Article in Cardiovascular and interventional radiology, 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.
- Preliminary study on optimizing head position for endovascular treatment of anterior communicating artery aneurysms.Frontiers in neuroscience · 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDespite decades of endovascular treatment (EVT) of intracranial aneurysms (IA), there are no studies regarding the ideal working projections. Possible correlations between suboptimal working projections and procedure-related complications therefore remain unknown. This study aims at investigating the level of consensus between different physicians proposed working projections for endosaccular treatment of IAs. MATERIALS AND
methodsFive interventional neuroradiologists used a simulation software to select what they considered to be the optimal biplane working projections (BPW) for the intrasaccular treatment of 20 intracranial aneurysms. Five further raters evaluated these projections and either agreed or disagreed with the proposed working projection. Where necessary, reasons for rejecting the proposed working projection was provided.
resultsOverall, a substantial interobserver consensus was achieved (κ = 0.81), with at least one projection consistently agreed upon for 19 out of 20 aneurysms. Conversely, only one projection was unanimously rejected. Lack of clear delineation of the aneurysm neck, the parent vessel, and associated vessels were the most frequently cited reasons for rejection (39%, 39%, and 31%, respectively), while "other reasons" accounted for 19%.
conclusionAlthough the specific working projections chosen for individual aneurysms were heterogeneous, there was still a broad consensus on at least one suitable projection for almost every case. Further research is required to explore the possible benefit of adjusting the patient's head position or making slight angle deviations in BWPs with physical restrictions and furthermore, to evaluate the risks associated with suboptimal BWPs in EVT.
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.