Long-Term Clinical and Imaging Follow-Up of Complex Intracranial Aneurysms Treated by Endovascular Parent Vessel Occlusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Flow-diverting stents are increasingly being used for the treatment of complex intracranial aneurysms, but the indications for their use in lieu of traditional endovascular PVO have yet to be precisely defined. The purpose of this study was to review the clinical and imaging outcomes of patients with intracranial aneurysms treated by PVO. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 28 patients with intracranial aneurysms, treated by PVO between July 1992 and December 2009, were reviewed. Aneurysms arising from peripheral arteries were excluded. Clinical and imaging data were retrospectively analyzed from a prospectively maintained data base. RESULTS: There were 28 patients with 28 aneurysms treated by PVO. Aneurysms of the anterior circulation presenting with mass effect (n = 11) or discovered incidentally (n = 1), and dissecting-type VB aneurysms presenting with subarachnoid hemorrhage (n = 6) faired the best with high obliteration rates (83.3% and 83.6%, respectively) and no permanent major ischemic complications. In contrast, VB aneurysms presenting with mass effect (n = 7) demonstrated the lowest obliteration rate (57.1%), the highest rate of permanent major ischemic complications (28.6%), and a high mortality rate (28.6%). CONCLUSIONS: PVO is a safe and effective treatment for complex intracranial aneurysms of the carotid artery and dissecting-type VB aneurysms presenting with SAH. In contrast, PVO for aneurysms of the VB circulation presenting with mass effect is less efficacious and associated with significant morbidity and mortality. It is hoped that flow diverters may represent a better treatment technique for these most difficult-to-treat lesions.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".