Bipolar radiofrequency ablation of aneurysm remnants after coil embolization can improve endovascular treatment of experimental bifurcation aneurysms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Endovascular treatment of aneurysms may result in incomplete initial occlusion and aneurysm recurrence at angiographic follow-up studies. This study aimed to assess the feasibility and efficacy of bipolar radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of aneurysm remnants after coil embolization. METHODS Bipolar RFA was accomplished using the coil mass as 1 electrode, while the second electrode was a stent placed across the aneurysmal neck. After preliminary experiments and protocol approval from the Animal Care committee, wide-necked bifurcation aneurysms were constructed in 24 animals. Aneurysms were allocated to 1 of 3 groups: partial intraoperative coil embolization, followed by RFA (n = 12; treated group) or without RFA (n = 6; control group 1); or attempted complete endovascular coil embolization 2-4 weeks later (n = 6; control group 2). Angiographic results were compared at baseline, immediately after RFA, and at 12 weeks, using an ordinal scale. Pathological results and neointima formation at the neck were compared using a semiquantitative grading scale. RESULTS Bipolar RFA was able to reliably target the aneurysm neck when the coil mass and stent were used as electrodes. RFA improved angiographic results immediately after partial coiling (p = 0.0024). Two RFA-related complications occurred, involving transient occlusion of 1 carotid artery and 1 hemorrhage from an adventitial arterial blister. At 12 weeks, angiographic results were improved with RFA (median score of 0), when compared with controls (median score of 2; p = 0.0013). Neointimal closure of the aneurysm neck was better with RFA compared with controls (p = 0.0003). CONCLUSIONS Bipolar RFA can improve results of embolization in experimental models by selectively ablating residual lesions after coil embolization.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".