Endovascular treatment of cavernous carotid artery aneurysms: A 10-year, single-center experience
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Cavernous carotid artery aneurysms can be treated by several endovascular techniques including flow diversion (FD) and parent vessel occlusion (PVO). We reviewed our institution’s consecutive series of endovascularly treated cavernous carotid artery aneurysms to compare these two modalities and their associated clinical and radiographic outcomes. Methods All patients harboring a cavernous carotid artery aneurysm treated by FD or PVO from January 2008 to December 2018 were enrolled. Data were collected retrospectively and analyzed on patient presentation, aneurysm dimensions, treatments and related complications, rate of aneurysm occlusion, sac regression, and outcomes. Results Fourteen patients were treated with FD and 12 underwent PVO subsequent to passing a balloon test occlusion. There was no significant difference between treatment modalities in aneurysmal occlusion (97.0 ± 8.4% (FD) vs. 100% (PVO), p = 0.23), degree of sac regression (62.5 ± 16.7% (FD) vs. 56.8 ± 24.3% (PVO), p = 0.49), or near-complete to complete symptom improvement (66.7% (FD) vs. 81.8% (PVO), p = 0.62). Major complications included subarachnoid hemorrhage from aneurysmal rupture in 1 (7.1%) patient post-FD and 2 (16.7%) ischemic strokes following PVO. Conclusions Endovascular treatment of cavernous carotid artery aneurysms by FD or PVO are both effective and safe. There is insufficient evidence to recommend one technique over the other and decision making should be individualized to the patient, their aneurysm morphology, and operator experience.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it