ArticleSurgical neurology international2026
Intraoperative motor-evoked potential monitoring during coil embolization of internal carotid-anterior choroidal artery aneurysms: A comparative case series and lessons on monitoring pitfalls.
Article in Surgical neurology international, 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
Background: Ischemic injury to the anterior choroidal artery (AChA) territory during coil embolization of internal carotid artery-AChA (ICA-AChA) aneurysms can be functionally devastating and is not always detected by angiography. We examined the utility and the interpretive pitfalls of intraoperative motor-evoked potential (MEP) monitoring in this specific aneurysm subgroup. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 16 consecutive patients who underwent coil embolization for ICA-AChA aneurysms at a single institution. Seven patients (2013-2025) were monitored with intraoperative MEP (MEP group); 9 patients (2005-2015) treated before monitoring was introduced served as a historical comparison group (non-MEP group). Angiographic AChA changes, MEP waveform changes, intraoperative interventions, and postoperative diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging were analyzed. Results: Significant MEP amplitude reduction (≥50%) occurred in two monitored patients, prompting coil retrieval, microcatheter repositioning, or a procedural pause; amplitudes recovered in all. One patient showed transient MEP reduction without angiographic change (possible false-positive). No patient in the MEP group developed postoperative infarction (0%), whereas two of nine non-MEP patients did (22%). Conclusion: In this small comparative series, MEP monitoring provided functional information complementary to angiography, with no infarctions in the monitored group. MEP changes must be interpreted alongside angiographic and clinical findings, as both false-positive and false-negative results occur. These hypothesis-generating findings warrant prospective validation.
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.