Navigation of Stents across Communicating Arteries for Aneurysm Embolization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Endovascular coiling of aneurysms crossing the Circle of Willis has been described in small case series. The technical challenges in manipulating a stent across the Circle of Willis lie in negotiating difficult angles and small arteries. We present our experience with treating aneurysms by stent assistance in which the Circle of Willis was crossed to facilitate optimal stent deployment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the cases in our institution from January 2009 to June 2012 in which the Circle of Willis was traversed to facilitate optimal stent deployment. We measured the diameter of the communicating arteries traversed, caliber of the target arteries in which the stent was deployed and the most acute angle negotiated ("critical angle"). We compare our results with other published series in the literature. RESULTS: Eight patients fulfilled the criteria: 5 males (45-66 years). There were three anterior and five posterior circulation aneurysms. Four of the aneurysms were ruptured. The PCOM was traversed in five cases, the ACOM in three cases. The mean diameter of the communicating artery was 1.17 mm. The mean diameter of target arteries was 1.27 mm. The "critical angle" was 72-147 degrees. In all patients, there was satisfactory obliteration of the aneurysm. There were two cases of minor SAH post procedure. CONCLUSION: Utilizing the Circle of Willis for optimal stent placement in aneurysm remodeling is technically feasible but challenging. This technique can be performed successfully in patients with acute SAH. The procedural risk must be balanced against potential complications such as SAH.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".