Vertebral artery aneurysms and the risk of cord infarction following spinal artery coverage during flow diversion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Coverage of the anterior spinal artery (ASA) ostia is a source of considerable consternation regarding flow diversion (FD) in vertebral artery (VA) aneurysms due to cord supply. The authors sought to assess the association between coverage of the ASA, posterior spinal artery (PSA), or lateral spinal artery (LSA) ostia when placing flow diverters in distal VAs and clinical outcomes, with emphasis on cord infarction. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective study of 7 institutions in which VA aneurysms were treated with FD between 2011 and 2019 was performed. The authors evaluated the risk of ASA and PSA/LSA occlusion, associated thromboembolic complication, complications overall, aneurysm occlusion status, and functional outcome. RESULTS: Sixty patients with 63 VA and posterior inferior cerebellar artery aneurysms treated with FD were identified. The median aneurysm diameter was 7 mm and fusiform type was the commonest morphology (42.9%). During a procedure, 1 (61.7%) or 2 (33.3%) flow diverters were placed. Complete occlusion was achieved in 71.9%. Symptomatic thromboembolic complications occurred in 7.4% of cases and intracranial hemorrhage in 10.0% of cases. The ASA and PSA/LSA were identified in 51 (80.9%) and 35 (55.6%) complications and covered by the flow diverter in 29 (56.9%) and 13 (37.1%) of the procedures, respectively. Patency after flow diverter coverage on last follow-up was 89.2% for ASA and 100% for PSA/LSA, not significantly different between covered and noncovered groups (p = 0.5 and p > 0.99, respectively). No complications arose from coverage. CONCLUSIONS: FD aneurysm treatment in the posterior circulation with coverage of ASA or PSA/LSA was not associated with higher rates of occlusion of these branches or any instances of cord infarction.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".