Cargando…
Contour device implantation versus coil embolization for treatment of narrow neck intracranial aneurysms
The novel Contour device is an intrasaccular flow disruption device designed for treatment of intracranial wide-neck bifurcation aneurysms. Outside its original purpose, Contour implantation can be used to treat aneurysms with a higher dome-to-neck ratio which would be suitable for conventional unas...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group UK
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10039918/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36966218 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-31877-1 |
_version_ | 1784912372007174144 |
---|---|
author | Mostafa, Karim Bueno Neves, Fernando Gärtner, Friederike Peters, Sönke Hensler, Johannes Larsen, Naomi Klintz, Tristan Mahnke, Justus Jansen, Olav Wodarg, Fritz |
author_facet | Mostafa, Karim Bueno Neves, Fernando Gärtner, Friederike Peters, Sönke Hensler, Johannes Larsen, Naomi Klintz, Tristan Mahnke, Justus Jansen, Olav Wodarg, Fritz |
author_sort | Mostafa, Karim |
collection | PubMed |
description | The novel Contour device is an intrasaccular flow disruption device designed for treatment of intracranial wide-neck bifurcation aneurysms. Outside its original purpose, Contour implantation can be used to treat aneurysms with a higher dome-to-neck ratio which would be suitable for conventional unassisted coil embolization. We compared both techniques in a retrospective single-center analysis. A total of 42 aneurysms from 42 patients with a dome-to-neck ratio of 1.6 or higher were included in this study. Data on technical success, implantation times, radiation dosages, procedural complications, reinterventions and recurrences were gathered and compared. Technical success was achieved in all cases with both techniques. Aneurysm embolization was achieved significantly faster in the Contour group compared to coiling (Overall p = 0.0002; r = 0.580; acute setting: p = 0.005, r = 0.531; elective setting: p = 0.002, r = 0.607). Significantly less radiation dosage was applied in the Contour group (Overall p = 0.002; r = 0.478; acute group p = 0.006; r = 0.552; elective group p = 0.045; r = 0.397). The number of complications was higher in the coiling group compared to the Contour group (Coiling 7/21 (33,3%); Contour 3/21 (14.3%). There was a higher rate of reinterventions in the coiling group (7.6% vs 21.4%). Outside its original intention, the Contour device seems to be a safe and fast alternative to coil embolization for the treatment of narrow-neck-aneurysms. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10039918 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group UK |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-100399182023-03-27 Contour device implantation versus coil embolization for treatment of narrow neck intracranial aneurysms Mostafa, Karim Bueno Neves, Fernando Gärtner, Friederike Peters, Sönke Hensler, Johannes Larsen, Naomi Klintz, Tristan Mahnke, Justus Jansen, Olav Wodarg, Fritz Sci Rep Article The novel Contour device is an intrasaccular flow disruption device designed for treatment of intracranial wide-neck bifurcation aneurysms. Outside its original purpose, Contour implantation can be used to treat aneurysms with a higher dome-to-neck ratio which would be suitable for conventional unassisted coil embolization. We compared both techniques in a retrospective single-center analysis. A total of 42 aneurysms from 42 patients with a dome-to-neck ratio of 1.6 or higher were included in this study. Data on technical success, implantation times, radiation dosages, procedural complications, reinterventions and recurrences were gathered and compared. Technical success was achieved in all cases with both techniques. Aneurysm embolization was achieved significantly faster in the Contour group compared to coiling (Overall p = 0.0002; r = 0.580; acute setting: p = 0.005, r = 0.531; elective setting: p = 0.002, r = 0.607). Significantly less radiation dosage was applied in the Contour group (Overall p = 0.002; r = 0.478; acute group p = 0.006; r = 0.552; elective group p = 0.045; r = 0.397). The number of complications was higher in the coiling group compared to the Contour group (Coiling 7/21 (33,3%); Contour 3/21 (14.3%). There was a higher rate of reinterventions in the coiling group (7.6% vs 21.4%). Outside its original intention, the Contour device seems to be a safe and fast alternative to coil embolization for the treatment of narrow-neck-aneurysms. Nature Publishing Group UK 2023-03-25 /pmc/articles/PMC10039918/ /pubmed/36966218 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-31877-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Article Mostafa, Karim Bueno Neves, Fernando Gärtner, Friederike Peters, Sönke Hensler, Johannes Larsen, Naomi Klintz, Tristan Mahnke, Justus Jansen, Olav Wodarg, Fritz Contour device implantation versus coil embolization for treatment of narrow neck intracranial aneurysms |
title | Contour device implantation versus coil embolization for treatment of narrow neck intracranial aneurysms |
title_full | Contour device implantation versus coil embolization for treatment of narrow neck intracranial aneurysms |
title_fullStr | Contour device implantation versus coil embolization for treatment of narrow neck intracranial aneurysms |
title_full_unstemmed | Contour device implantation versus coil embolization for treatment of narrow neck intracranial aneurysms |
title_short | Contour device implantation versus coil embolization for treatment of narrow neck intracranial aneurysms |
title_sort | contour device implantation versus coil embolization for treatment of narrow neck intracranial aneurysms |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10039918/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36966218 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-31877-1 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mostafakarim contourdeviceimplantationversuscoilembolizationfortreatmentofnarrowneckintracranialaneurysms AT buenonevesfernando contourdeviceimplantationversuscoilembolizationfortreatmentofnarrowneckintracranialaneurysms AT gartnerfriederike contourdeviceimplantationversuscoilembolizationfortreatmentofnarrowneckintracranialaneurysms AT peterssonke contourdeviceimplantationversuscoilembolizationfortreatmentofnarrowneckintracranialaneurysms AT henslerjohannes contourdeviceimplantationversuscoilembolizationfortreatmentofnarrowneckintracranialaneurysms AT larsennaomi contourdeviceimplantationversuscoilembolizationfortreatmentofnarrowneckintracranialaneurysms AT klintztristan contourdeviceimplantationversuscoilembolizationfortreatmentofnarrowneckintracranialaneurysms AT mahnkejustus contourdeviceimplantationversuscoilembolizationfortreatmentofnarrowneckintracranialaneurysms AT jansenolav contourdeviceimplantationversuscoilembolizationfortreatmentofnarrowneckintracranialaneurysms AT wodargfritz contourdeviceimplantationversuscoilembolizationfortreatmentofnarrowneckintracranialaneurysms |