Cyanoacrylate embolization of experimental aneurysms.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Cyanoacrylates are effective occlusive agents in neurovascular interventions. To study their potential to improve long-term results of endovascular treatment of aneurysms, we conducted experimental studies in canine aneurysm models. METHODS: Venous pouch carotid aneurysms were constructed in dogs. Results of coil embolization of lateral wall and bifurcation aneurysms were compared. A lateral wall model of embolization with gelatin sponges was used to study the effects of coating sponges with cyanoacrylate on angiographic results and neointima thickness at 3 and 12 weeks. These models were also used to investigate the control of endovascular cyanoacrylate deposition, alone or over a coil placed at the neck of the treated lesions. The results of endovascular cyanoacrylate embolization of bifurcation aneurysms were compared with those of coil embolization at 3 months. RESULTS: Bifurcation aneurysms treated with coils showed more frequent recurrences (P <.01) and thinner neointimas (P <.01) at 3 months than did lateral wall aneurysms. Cyanoacrylate-coated sponges improved angiographic results (P <.05) and led to thicker neointimas at 3 and 12 weeks (P <.05) as compared with uncoated sponges. Endovascular cyanoacrylate deposition with microcatheters led to stray emboli in all cases. Cyanoacrylate delivery was improved by a single coil positioned at the neck of the aneurysm, but parent vessel embolization still occurred in 25% of the animals. Cyanoacrylate embolization of bifurcation aneurysms improved angiographic results at 3 months as compared with coil embolization (P <.01). CONCLUSION: Cyanoacrylate embolization is currently difficult to control. It has the potential to decrease recurrences after endovacular treatment of aneurysms, but a safe method for endovascular delivery has yet to be developed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".