SynthesisNeuroradiology2026
Bioresorbable flow-diverters for cerebral aneurysms: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Neuroradiology, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBioresorbable flow diverters (BRFDs) are emerging as next-generation alternatives to permanent metallic stents for intracranial aneurysm flow diversion. These devices aim to provide temporary flow diversion that scaffolds aneurysm healing and then dissolves, potentially reducing chronic foreign-body risks.
methodsWe performed a systematic review (PRISMA methodology) updated to August 2025 to assess BRFD technology and performance. Seventeen studies (2013–2025) met inclusion criteria, describing 27 prototype BRFDs.
resultsDevices varied widely in material and design. Many were fully polymeric (typically poly–L-lactic acid or polycaprolactone) or used biodegradable metals (FeMnN), often in polymer–metal hybrid configurations. Approximately 30% were deliverable via standard microcatheters, while about 30% required balloon expansion for wall apposition. In vivo aneurysm models, showed that 61% of BRFDs induced ≥ 80% aneurysm sac occlusion and 33% achieved complete occlusion by final follow-up. These occlusions typically appeared by 3–6 months post-implantation. No parent or jailed branch vessel occlusions were reported. About half of devices fully degraded by study end, and even after polymer or magnesium resorption any integrated radiopaque markers remained in place; importantly, no significant chronic inflammation or vessel stenosis was observed post-resorption.
conclusionNo BRFD has yet entered clinical practice. Conclusions regarding efficacy, safety, and long-term durability remain theoretical, and that the persistence of aneurysm occlusion after complete scaffold resorption has not yet been established.
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.