Pipeline versus Tubridge in the treatment of unruptured posterior circulation aneurysms.

Q2 Medicine

Chinese Neurosurgical Journal Pub Date : 2023-08-04 DOI:10.1186/s41016-023-00337-0

Hengwei Jin, Jian Lv, Xiangyu Meng, Xinke Liu, Hongwei He, Youxiang Li

{"title":"Pipeline versus Tubridge in the treatment of unruptured posterior circulation aneurysms.","authors":"Hengwei Jin, Jian Lv, Xiangyu Meng, Xinke Liu, Hongwei He, Youxiang Li","doi":"10.1186/s41016-023-00337-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: To compare the safety and efficacy of pipeline embolization device (PED) and Tubridge flow diverter (TFD) for unruptured posterior circulation aneurysms.Methods: Posterior aneurysm patients treated with PED or TFD between January, 2019, and December, 2021, were retrospectively reviewed. Patients' demographics, aneurysm characteristics, treatment details, complications, and follow-up information were collected. The procedural-related complications and angiographic and clinical outcome were compared.Results: A total of 107 patients were involved; PED was applied for 55 patients and TFD for 52 patients. A total of 9 (8.4%) procedural-related complications occurred, including 4 (7.3%) in PED group and 5 (9.6%) in TFD group. During a mean of 10.3-month angiographic follow-up for 81 patients, complete occlusion was achieved in 35 (85.4%) patients in PED group and 30 (75.0%) in TFD group. The occlusion rate of PED group is slightly higher than that of TFD group. A mean of 25.0-month clinical follow-up for 107 patients showed that favorable clinical outcome was achieved in 53 (96.4%) patients in PED group and 50 (96.2%) patients in TFD group, respectively. No statistical difference was found in terms of procedural-related complications (p = 0.737), occlusion rate (p = 0.241), and favorable clinical outcome (0.954) between groups.Conclusions: The current study found no difference in complication, occlusion, and clinical outcome between PED and TFD for unruptured PCAs.","PeriodicalId":36700,"journal":{"name":"Chinese Neurosurgical Journal","volume":"9 1","pages":"22"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10401889/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chinese Neurosurgical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41016-023-00337-0","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: To compare the safety and efficacy of pipeline embolization device (PED) and Tubridge flow diverter (TFD) for unruptured posterior circulation aneurysms.

Methods: Posterior aneurysm patients treated with PED or TFD between January, 2019, and December, 2021, were retrospectively reviewed. Patients' demographics, aneurysm characteristics, treatment details, complications, and follow-up information were collected. The procedural-related complications and angiographic and clinical outcome were compared.

Results: A total of 107 patients were involved; PED was applied for 55 patients and TFD for 52 patients. A total of 9 (8.4%) procedural-related complications occurred, including 4 (7.3%) in PED group and 5 (9.6%) in TFD group. During a mean of 10.3-month angiographic follow-up for 81 patients, complete occlusion was achieved in 35 (85.4%) patients in PED group and 30 (75.0%) in TFD group. The occlusion rate of PED group is slightly higher than that of TFD group. A mean of 25.0-month clinical follow-up for 107 patients showed that favorable clinical outcome was achieved in 53 (96.4%) patients in PED group and 50 (96.2%) patients in TFD group, respectively. No statistical difference was found in terms of procedural-related complications (p = 0.737), occlusion rate (p = 0.241), and favorable clinical outcome (0.954) between groups.

Conclusions: The current study found no difference in complication, occlusion, and clinical outcome between PED and TFD for unruptured PCAs.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

导管与导管治疗未破裂后循环动脉瘤。

背景:比较管道栓塞装置(PED)与Tubridge分流器(TFD)治疗未破裂后循环动脉瘤的安全性和有效性。方法:回顾性分析2019年1月至2021年12月期间接受PED或TFD治疗的后动脉瘤患者。收集患者的人口统计学、动脉瘤特征、治疗细节、并发症和随访信息。比较手术相关并发症及血管造影和临床结果。结果:共纳入107例患者;PED 55例，TFD 52例。共发生9例(8.4%)手术相关并发症，其中PED组4例(7.3%)，TFD组5例(9.6%)。在81例患者平均10.3个月的血管造影随访中，PED组35例(85.4%)患者实现完全闭塞，TFD组30例(75.0%)患者实现完全闭塞。PED组的闭塞率略高于TFD组。107例患者平均25.0个月的临床随访显示，PED组53例(96.4%)，TFD组50例(96.2%)获得良好的临床结果。两组手术相关并发症(p = 0.737)、闭塞率(p = 0.241)、良好临床结局(0.954)差异无统计学意义。结论:目前的研究发现，对于未破裂的前列腺癌，PED和TFD在并发症、闭塞和临床结果方面没有差异。

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