国家神经系统疾病临床医学研究中心数据管理与共享系统

Data Management And Sharing System of China National Clinical Research Center for Neurological Diseases

Management of Residual and Recurrent Aneurysms After Clipping or Coiling: Clinical Characteristics, Treatments, and Follow-Up Outcomes

第一作者:Yu Le-Bao

通讯作者:Zhang Dong

Endovascular coiling Microsurgical clipping Recurr

基本信息

  • 负责人:Yu Le-Bao
  • 数据来源: OTHERS
  • 论文编号:OTHERS20190865
  • 发表时间:2019-02-01

2019-02-01

已发表文章

发表杂志:World Neurosurgery

发表类型: Original Article

影响因子(IF): 2.104

PMID: 30391763 Pubmed原文链接 全文下载

主要研究背景及目的

方法

A total of 117 patients with RAs were treated in a single neurosurgical center from January 2011 to January 2017. The demographic and angiographic characteristics of the patients, treatment approaches, and follow-up outcomes were evaluated.

结论

The follow-up outcomes appeared to be acceptable and comparable between the 2 groups. However, in large or giant recurrent aneurysms, sound judgment and the careful selection of treatment are strongly suggested because direct microsurgery has a higher morbidity, even in experienced hands, whereas endovascular coiling is complicated with a higher incomplete occlusion rate.

主要结果

Of the 117 patients with RAs, 16 (13.7%) and 101 (86.3%) initially underwent microsurgical clipping and endovascular coiling, respectively. Coil embolization was used in 75 cases, microsurgical clipping was used in 32 cases, and conservative treatment occurred in 10 cases. Complete clipping was achieved in all 32 aneurysms by microsurgery, and remnants were observed in 25 aneurysms after coiling (33.3%, P < 0.001). Operation-related cerebral infarction occurred in 4 cases (12.5%) with complex and large RA in the clipping group and in 1.3% (1/75) of patients treated with coiling (P = 0.027). Follow-up found similar favorable outcomes in patients after coiling, clipping, and conservative treatment (90.3% vs. 86.7% vs. 80%, respectively; P = 0.711). Follow-up rates of recurrence were significantly higher in the coiling group than the clipping group (26% vs. 0%, respectively; P = 0.003).