eCLIPs bifurcation remodeling system for treatment of wide-neck bifurcation aneurysms: A systematic review and meta-analysis of safety and efficacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Wide neck bifurcation aneurysms (WNBAs) are a subtype of aneurysms that are especially complex to treat. We aim to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesize the available literature on the safety and efficacy of employing endovascular clip system (eCLIPs) in the treatment of WNBAs. METHODS: We report this study in accordance to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus were queried for this review. Screening and extraction were performed by at least two authors to ensure accuracy and completeness, and a senior author arbitrated any discrepancies. All data were analyzed using R software version 4.3.0. and random-effects model. RESULTS: Four studies were finally included, of which three were prospective and one was retrospective. Successful adjunctive coiling occurred in 91.38% (95% CI = 70.71-97.9) of cases and overall technical success was achieved in 88.61% (95 CI = 75.54-95.15) of cases. The pooled complete occlusion (Raymond-Roy Class I) was 50.65% (95% CI = 39.63-61.60) and adequate occlusion (Raymond-Roy Class I/II) was 84.42% (95% CI = 74.53-90.93). Thrombo-embolic complication had a pooled rate of 1.22% (95% CI = 0.17-8.15), retreatment rate was 6.10% (95% CI = 2.56-13.83), and mortality reported in 3.66% (95% CI = 1.18-10.74) of patients. CONCLUSION: The use of eCLIPs may be a safe and efficacious treatment for WNBAs. Future randomized controlled trials are needed for further validation of the findings.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".