Single versus multiple coverage of pipeline embolization device for treatment of intracranial aneurysms: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The use of the pipeline embolization device (PED) with single or multiple coverage in cases of intracranial aneurysms is still not well defined. We aimed to compare rates of aneurysm occlusion and complications in patients covered with single versus multiple PEDs. Methods For this systematic review, we searched PubMed and SpringerLink databases, and citations for studies on September 2022. All peer-reviewed studies of adult patients diagnosed with intracranial aneurysm covered with single and multiple PEDs were assessed, and the rates of aneurysm occlusion and complications were collected, and have been published between April 20, 2011, and September 30, 2022. The risk of bias assessment was scored using the Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for cohort studies. Evidence from studies was synthesized as narrative synthesis. Results A total of 5 studies with 772 patients and 795 aneurysms were included. A total of 531 (68.8%) patients were covered with a single PED, while 241 (31.2%) with multiple PEDs. The aneurysms are mostly located in the anterior circulation, with 93.84% in the single PED versus 86.08% in the multiple PEDs group. A total of 525 (92.58%) saccular types of aneurysms were covered in a single PED versus 222 (86.98%) in the multiple PEDs group. The overall aneurysms occlusion rates in approximately midterm follow-up were 72.34% in the single PED versus 87.04% in the multiple PEDs group. The overall complication rates among studies were 6.54% in a single PED versus 8.24% in the multiple PEDs group. Conclusions There is no significant difference in overall intracranial aneurysm occlusion rates when comparing single versus multiple PEDs coverage for treatment of aneurysms, primarily with longer follow-up times, with low and no significantly different complication rates between groups.
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 | 0.008 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".