ArticleNeuroradiology2026
Intraprocedural re-rupture during endovascular treatment of ruptured intracranial aneurysms: A single-center experience.
Article 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntraprocedural re-rupture (IPR-RR) of ruptured intracranial aneurysms is rare but often catastrophic. We aimed to quantify the incidence of IPR-RR at our institution and describe its clinical characteristics, procedural context, and outcomes.
methodsEndovascular treatments for ruptured aneurysms at a tertiary center were reviewed. Intraprocedural re-rupture (IPR-RR) was defined as angiographic contrast extravasation or extrusion of a device tip beyond the aneurysm wall. The primary objective was to characterize the incidence of IPR-RR and identify associated clinical and procedural factors. Secondary endpoints included in-hospital mortality and discharge functional status as measured by the modified Rankin Scale (mRS 0-2 vs. > 2).
resultsIPR-RR occurred in 17/702 cases (2.4%). Patients with IPR-RR were more frequently aged 18-40 years (35.3% vs. 12.2%, p = 0.011) and had aneurysms > 10 mm (18% vs. 4%). Vascular risk factors, including hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and smoking history, were similarly distributed between groups. Balloon-assisted coiling was used in 82.4% vs. 58.0% (p = 0.114). Favorable discharge outcome occurred in 29.4% vs. 51.5% (p = 0.072), while in-hospital mortality was 17.6% vs. 10.2% (p = 0.580).
conclusionsIntraprocedural re-rupture occurred in 2.4% of ruptured aneurysm treatments and was associated with worse early outcomes. Effective management relied on immediate coil packing, balloon inflation, and anticoagulation reversal. Procedural preparedness, including strict blood pressure control and readiness for cerebrospinal fluid diversion, is essential to limit secondary neurological injury in this rare but serious complication.
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.