Risk factors and consequences of unexpected trapping for ruptured anterior communicating artery aneurysms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While clipping cerebral aneurysms at the neck is optimal, in some cases this is not possible and other strategies are necessary. The purpose of this study was to describe the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes for inability to clip reconstruct ruptured anterior communicating artery (ACoA) aneurysms. METHODS: Of the 70 cases of ruptured ACoA aneurysms between January 2006 and December 2013, our institutional experience revealed four cases of small ACoA aneurysms that had been considered clippable prior to operation but required trapping. When a unilateral A2 segment of anterior cerebral artery (ACA) was compromised by trapping, revascularization was performed by bypass surgery. Clinical presentation, angiographic characteristics, operative approach, intraoperative findings, and treatment outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: Very small aneurysm under 3 mm was a risk factor for unexpected trapping. The reason for unexpected trapping was laceration of the aneurysmal neck in two cases, and lack of clippaple component due to disintegration of entire aneurysmal wall at the time of rupture in the others. Aneurysms with bilateral A1 were treated with sole trapping through pterional approach in two cases. The other two cases had hypoplastic unilateral A1 segment of ACA and were treated with combination of aneurysm trapping and revascularization of A2 segment of ACA through interhemispheric approach. No patients had new cerebral infarctions of cortical ACA territory from surgery. Cognitive dysfunction was observed in three cases, but all patients became independent at 12-month follow up. CONCLUSIONS: Unexpected trapping was performed when ruptured ACoA aneurysms were unclippable. Trapping with or without bypass can result in reasonable outcomes, with acceptable risk of cognitive dysfunction.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".