Predictive Accuracy and Procedural Benefits of Software-Enhanced Flow-Diverter Planning: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Dani Douri, Paolo Panales, Bailey Riehl, Samantha Weston, Claire Westby, Sherief Ghozy, Bianca Savant, Mark Rohleder, Zachary Bueling, Abdullah Reda, Ramanathan Kadirvel, David F Kallmes
{"title":"Predictive Accuracy and Procedural Benefits of Software-Enhanced Flow-Diverter Planning: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Dani Douri, Paolo Panales, Bailey Riehl, Samantha Weston, Claire Westby, Sherief Ghozy, Bianca Savant, Mark Rohleder, Zachary Bueling, Abdullah Reda, Ramanathan Kadirvel, David F Kallmes","doi":"10.3174/ajnr.A9325","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Flow-diverting (FD) stents play a critical role in the management of complex intracranial aneurysms. Successful FD stent deployment requires precise planning to minimize peri- and postprocedural complications. This traditionally relied on physician expertise for precise planning; however, software simulations now offer estimative modeling.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This systematic review and meta-analysis compares physician and software simulations for predicting stent deployment and assesses the clinical impact of software integration on procedural metrics.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus (articles through July 18, 2025) using Nested Knowledge Autolit. The search combined Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and keywords and followed updated Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A manual review of the reference lists was performed to identify gray literature.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>Fourteen studies were included. All studies that involved comparative data, a physician, and software/simulation tool regarding intracranial aneurysms with outcomes relating to accuracy metrics, interobserver agreement or apposition, or procedural metrics were included.</p><p><strong>Data analysis: </strong>All data were analyzed using R, Version 4.5.2, and the \"meta\" package. Risk of bias (RoB) assessment was completed using the ROBINS-I tool for procedural metric-related studies and the COSMIN-based checklist for accuracy/agreement-related studies.</p><p><strong>Data synthesis: </strong>The pooled analysis found software-predicted stent length to be shorter than the physicians' predicted length (mean difference [MD], 2.88 mm; 95% CI, 1.25-4.51), without a statistically significant difference in diameter (MD, 0.00 mm; 95% CI, -0.09 to 0.09); software-chosen dimensions were accurate to the postimplantation length (MD, -1.40 mm; 95% CI, -3.56 to 0.76) and diameter (MD, 0.17 mm; 95% CI, -0.63 to 0.97); software-assisted cases were associated with shorter procedure duration (MD, 9.91 min; 95% CI, 1.23-18.58), lower radiation dose (MD 305.52 mGy [172.14, 438.90]), and fewer corrective interventions (OR 3.44 [1.78, 6.64]); and there was no significant difference in hemorrhagic complications (OR 1.67 [0.65, 4.28]) and postoperative aneurysm occlusion (OR 0.52 [0.07, 3.78]).</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>Given the retrospective nature and bias limitations of current literature, further prospective, randomized studies are warranted to better assess the clinical impact of simulation software in the endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The findings in this paper provide preliminary evidence to support integration of virtual simulation software in the preprocedural FD treatment planning.</p>","PeriodicalId":93863,"journal":{"name":"AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A9325","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Flow-diverting (FD) stents play a critical role in the management of complex intracranial aneurysms. Successful FD stent deployment requires precise planning to minimize peri- and postprocedural complications. This traditionally relied on physician expertise for precise planning; however, software simulations now offer estimative modeling.

Purpose: This systematic review and meta-analysis compares physician and software simulations for predicting stent deployment and assesses the clinical impact of software integration on procedural metrics.

Data sources: We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus (articles through July 18, 2025) using Nested Knowledge Autolit. The search combined Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and keywords and followed updated Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A manual review of the reference lists was performed to identify gray literature.

Study selection: Fourteen studies were included. All studies that involved comparative data, a physician, and software/simulation tool regarding intracranial aneurysms with outcomes relating to accuracy metrics, interobserver agreement or apposition, or procedural metrics were included.

Data analysis: All data were analyzed using R, Version 4.5.2, and the "meta" package. Risk of bias (RoB) assessment was completed using the ROBINS-I tool for procedural metric-related studies and the COSMIN-based checklist for accuracy/agreement-related studies.

Data synthesis: The pooled analysis found software-predicted stent length to be shorter than the physicians' predicted length (mean difference [MD], 2.88 mm; 95% CI, 1.25-4.51), without a statistically significant difference in diameter (MD, 0.00 mm; 95% CI, -0.09 to 0.09); software-chosen dimensions were accurate to the postimplantation length (MD, -1.40 mm; 95% CI, -3.56 to 0.76) and diameter (MD, 0.17 mm; 95% CI, -0.63 to 0.97); software-assisted cases were associated with shorter procedure duration (MD, 9.91 min; 95% CI, 1.23-18.58), lower radiation dose (MD 305.52 mGy [172.14, 438.90]), and fewer corrective interventions (OR 3.44 [1.78, 6.64]); and there was no significant difference in hemorrhagic complications (OR 1.67 [0.65, 4.28]) and postoperative aneurysm occlusion (OR 0.52 [0.07, 3.78]).

Limitations: Given the retrospective nature and bias limitations of current literature, further prospective, randomized studies are warranted to better assess the clinical impact of simulation software in the endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms.

Conclusions: The findings in this paper provide preliminary evidence to support integration of virtual simulation software in the preprocedural FD treatment planning.

软件增强分流计划的预测准确性和程序效益:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:血流分流支架在复杂颅内动脉瘤的治疗中起着至关重要的作用。成功的FD支架部署需要精确的计划,以尽量减少手术前后的并发症。传统上,这依赖于医生的专业知识进行精确的计划;然而,软件模拟现在提供了估计建模。目的:本系统综述和荟萃分析比较了预测支架部署的医生和软件模拟,并评估了软件集成对程序指标的临床影响。数据来源:我们使用嵌套知识自动检索PubMed, Embase, Web of Science和Scopus(截至2025年7月18日的文章)。搜索结合了MeSH术语和关键字,并遵循了最新的PRISMA指南。手工审查的参考文献确定灰色文献。研究选择:纳入14项研究。所有涉及比较数据、医生和软件/模拟工具的研究,包括与准确性指标、观察者间一致或对立或程序指标相关的颅内动脉瘤结果。数据分析:所有数据都使用R 4.5.2版本和“meta”包进行分析。使用ROBINS-I工具完成与程序指标相关的研究,使用基于cosmin的检查表完成与准确性/一致性相关的研究。数据综合:合并分析发现,软件预测支架长度比医生预测的长度短(MD为2.88 mm;[1.25, 4.51]),直径差异无统计学意义(MD为0.0 mm; [-0.09, 0.09]);软件选择的尺寸精确到植入后长度(MD -1.40 mm,[-3.56, 0.76])和直径(MD 0.17 mm, [-0.63, 0.97]);软件辅助的病例与更短的手术时间(MD 9.91 min;[1.23, 18.58])、更低的辐射剂量(MD 305.52 mGy;[172.14, 438.90])和更少的纠正措施(OR 3.44;[1.78, 6.64])相关;出血性并发症(OR 1.67;[0.65, 4.28])和术后动脉瘤闭塞(OR 0.52,[0.07, 3.78])差异无统计学意义。局限性:考虑到现有文献的回顾性和偏倚局限性,需要进一步的前瞻性随机研究来更好地评估模拟软件在颅内动脉瘤血管内治疗中的临床影响。结论:本文的研究结果为支持虚拟仿真软件在FD术前治疗计划中的集成提供了初步证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书