Clipping versus coiling in unruptured anterior cerebral circulation aneurysms.
Anterior circulation
Clipping
Coiling
Unruptured aneurysm
Journal
Surgical neurology international
ISSN: 2229-5097
Titre abrégé: Surg Neurol Int
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101535836
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
02
01
2020
accepted:
01
03
2020
entrez:
8
4
2020
pubmed:
8
4
2020
medline:
8
4
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIAs) are not uncommon, especially in Japan. Treatment strategy for UIAs has evolved in the past decades in Western countries with the increased use of endovascular treatment as the primary option, but in Japan, clipping still has the upper hand. This study retrospectively included 200 patients treated by clipping or coiling for UIAs located in the anterior cerebral circulation. Postoperative angiographic and clinical outcomes were evaluated. Of 200 UIAs, 147 and 53 were treated by surgery and coiling, respectively. The average follow-up duration was 30.2 ± 18.8 months for clipping and 29.3 ± 17.6 months for coiling. Complete occlusion was greater in the surgery group (78.9%) than the endovascular group (18.8%). Regrowth occurred in 1.4% of the clipping group and 13.2% of the coiling group. Ischemic events were encountered in both groups; asymptomatic ones were higher in the coiling group (24.5%) than in the clipping group (2%), while symptomatic ischemic complications were equal (7.5%) in both groups. The deterioration of modified Rankin scale was detected totally in 13 UIAs (6.5%) with no statistical difference between groups. Postoperative hospital period was longer in clipping ( Clipping and coiling were both safe and feasible in the treatment of unruptured aneurysms. The clipping was advantageous in durability, while the rate of morbidity was lower, and hospitalization period was shorter in the coiling group. The clipping and coiling should coexist while complementing each other by understanding the advantages and disadvantages of both.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIAs) are not uncommon, especially in Japan. Treatment strategy for UIAs has evolved in the past decades in Western countries with the increased use of endovascular treatment as the primary option, but in Japan, clipping still has the upper hand.
METHODS
METHODS
This study retrospectively included 200 patients treated by clipping or coiling for UIAs located in the anterior cerebral circulation. Postoperative angiographic and clinical outcomes were evaluated.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Of 200 UIAs, 147 and 53 were treated by surgery and coiling, respectively. The average follow-up duration was 30.2 ± 18.8 months for clipping and 29.3 ± 17.6 months for coiling. Complete occlusion was greater in the surgery group (78.9%) than the endovascular group (18.8%). Regrowth occurred in 1.4% of the clipping group and 13.2% of the coiling group. Ischemic events were encountered in both groups; asymptomatic ones were higher in the coiling group (24.5%) than in the clipping group (2%), while symptomatic ischemic complications were equal (7.5%) in both groups. The deterioration of modified Rankin scale was detected totally in 13 UIAs (6.5%) with no statistical difference between groups. Postoperative hospital period was longer in clipping (
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Clipping and coiling were both safe and feasible in the treatment of unruptured aneurysms. The clipping was advantageous in durability, while the rate of morbidity was lower, and hospitalization period was shorter in the coiling group. The clipping and coiling should coexist while complementing each other by understanding the advantages and disadvantages of both.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32257576
doi: 10.25259/SNI_1_2020
pii: SNI-11-50
pmc: PMC7110064
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
50Informations de copyright
Copyright: © 2020 Surgical Neurology International.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
There are no conflicts of interest.
Références
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2007 Aug;78(8):864-71
pubmed: 17210624
ScientificWorldJournal. 2015;2015:954954
pubmed: 26146657
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2007 Jun-Jul;28(6):1172-5
pubmed: 17569982
Lancet. 2003 Jul 12;362(9378):103-10
pubmed: 12867109
Yonsei Med J. 2015 Jul;56(4):987-92
pubmed: 26069121
J Neurosurg. 2017 Mar;126(3):819-824
pubmed: 27128583
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2007 Oct;28(9):1755-61
pubmed: 17885238
Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2005;2006:607-10
pubmed: 17282255
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2011 Jun-Jul;32(6):1071-5
pubmed: 21511860
J Cerebrovasc Endovasc Neurosurg. 2014 Sep;16(3):175-83
pubmed: 25340018
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2004 Sep;146(9):967-72; discussion 972
pubmed: 15340806
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2017 Aug;88(8):663-668
pubmed: 28634280
Stroke. 2016 Feb;47(2):365-71
pubmed: 26742803
Lancet Neurol. 2014 Jan;13(1):59-66
pubmed: 24290159
Stroke. 2010 Feb;41(2):337-42
pubmed: 20044522
Surg Neurol. 2000 Jan;53(1):21-7; discussion 27-9
pubmed: 10697230
World Neurosurg. 2013 Dec;80(6):717-22
pubmed: 23369938
Neurosurg Rev. 2018 Apr;41(2):675-682
pubmed: 28983720
Stroke. 2003 Jun;34(6):1398-403
pubmed: 12775880
Ann Neurol. 2015 Jun;77(6):1050-9
pubmed: 25753954
Stroke. 2013 Apr;44(4):988-94
pubmed: 23449260
World Neurosurg. 2018 Oct;118:e745-e752
pubmed: 30010073
Stroke. 2013 Oct;44(10):2735-42
pubmed: 23899916
J Neurosurg. 2016 Nov;125(5):1249-1255
pubmed: 26871206
Neuroradiol J. 2017 Dec;30(6):600-606
pubmed: 29171364
Stroke Res Treat. 2014;2014:348147
pubmed: 24800103
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2006 Aug;27(7):1498-501
pubmed: 16908567
Br J Neurosurg. 2011 Aug;25(4):497-502
pubmed: 21344960
J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2010 Mar;47(3):185-90
pubmed: 20379470
Brain Behav. 2012 Jan;2(1):42-52
pubmed: 22574273
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2003 Jan;24(1):127-32
pubmed: 12533341