Endovascular treatment with flow diverters of recanalized and multitreated aneurysms initially treated by endovascular approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the feasibility, safety and efficacy of endovascular treatment with flow diverters in patients with recanalized and multitreated aneurysms in a retrospective, multicenter, single-arm study. METHODS: The study included 29 patients with 29 recanalized aneurysms who were treated by flow diverters (Silk or Pipeline devices). Pre- and post-procedural complications and morbidity and mortality rates were evaluated and functional outcomes (modified Rankin Score (mRS)) at 1 month (short-term) and 3-4 months (mid-term) were compared with preoperative mRS (before the procedure). Mid-term angiographic follow-up was performed assessing aneurysmal occlusion by the Montreal scale (complete occlusion, neck remnant, aneurysm remnant). RESULTS: Placement of the flow diverters was achieved in all patients. Two misdeployments of the flow diverters necessitated balloon dilation in two patients, which was associated with stent delivery in one patient. Permanent morbidity related to treatment was 6.9% (2/29), transient morbidity was 10.3% (3/29) and there were no deaths resulting from the treatment. One patient died from a myocardial infarct 4 weeks after the procedure. 25/29 patients (86.2%) had a good final functional outcome, 26/29 (89.7%) had an unchanged functional outcome and 2/29 patients (6.9%) had clinical worsening. Angiographic follow-up showed complete occlusion in 17/28 patients (60.7%), neck remnants in 6/28 patients (21.4%) and residual aneurysms in 5/28 (17.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Flow diverter placement is feasible and safe in patients with recanalized and multitreated aneurysms. The procedure is associated with a high percentage of good functional outcomes as well as good mid-term anatomical results (82.1%).
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".