Ostium Ratio and Neck Ratio Could Predict the Outcome of Sidewall Intracranial Aneurysms Treated with Flow Diverters

References

1. 1.↵
   2. D'Urso PI,
   3. Lanzino G,
   4. Cloft HJ, et al

   . Flow diversion for intracranial aneurysms: a review. Stroke 2011;42:2363–68 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.620328 pmid:21737793

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
2. 2.↵
   2. Becske T,
   3. Kallmes DF,
   4. Saatci I, et al

   . Pipeline for uncoilable or failed aneurysms: results from a multicenter clinical trial. Radiology 2013;267:858–68 doi:10.1148/radiol.13120099 pmid:23418004

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
3. 3.↵
   2. Becske T,
   3. Potts MB,
   4. Shapiro M, et al

   . Pipeline for uncoilable or failed aneurysms: 3-year follow-up results. J Neurosurg 2017;127:81–88 doi:10.3171/2015.6.JNS15311 pmid:27739944

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   2. Kallmes DF,
   3. Brinjikji W,
   4. Cekirge S, et al

   . Safety and efficacy of the Pipeline embolization device for treatment of intracranial aneurysms: a pooled analysis of 3 large studies. J Neurosurg 2017;127:775–80 doi:10.3171/2016.8.JNS16467 pmid:27791519

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   2. Kulcsár Z,
   3. Houdart E,
   4. Bonafé A, et al

   . Intra-aneurysmal thrombosis as a possible cause of delayed aneurysm rupture after flow-diversion treatment. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011;32:20–25 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2370 pmid:21071538

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
6. 6.↵
   2. Siddiqui AH,
   3. Abla AA,
   4. Kan P, et al

   . Panacea or problem: flow diverters in the treatment of symptomatic large or giant fusiform vertebrobasilar aneurysms. J Neurosurg 2012;116:1258–66 doi:10.3171/2012.2.JNS111942 pmid:22404673

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
7. 7.↵
   2. Turjman F,
   3. Massoud TF,
   4. Sayre J, et al

   . Predictors of aneurysmal occlusion in the period immediately after endovascular treatment with detachable coils: a multivariate analysis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1998;19:1645–51 pmid:9802486

   Abstract
8. 8.↵
   2. Johnston SC,
   3. Higashida RT,
   4. Barrow DL, et al

   ; Committee on Cerebrovascular Imaging of the American Heart Association Council on Cardiovascular Radiology. Recommendations for the endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms: a statement for healthcare professionals from the Committee on Cerebrovascular Imaging of the American Heart Association Council on Cardiovascular Radiology. Stroke 2002;33:2536–44 doi:10.1161/01.STR.0000034708.66191.7D pmid:12364750

   FREE Full Text
9. 9.↵
   2. Mut F,
   3. Raschi M,
   4. Scrivano E, et al

   . Association between hemodynamic conditions and occlusion times after flow diversion in cerebral aneurysms. J Neurointerv Surg 2015;7:286–90 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2013-01108 pmid:24696500

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
10. 10.↵
    2. Gentric JC,
    3. Darsaut TE,
    4. Makoyeva A, et al

    . The success of flow diversion in large and giant sidewall aneurysms may depend on the size of the defect in the parent artery. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2014;35:2119–24 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4010 pmid:24970546

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
11. 11.↵
    2. Dhar S,
    3. Tremmel M,
    4. Mocco J, et al

    . Morphology parameters for intracranial aneurysm rupture risk assessment. Neurosurgery 2008;63:185–96; discussion 196–97 doi:10.1227/01.NEU.0000316847.64140.81 pmid:18797347

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
12. 12.↵
    2. Raghavan ML,
    3. Ma B,
    4. Harbaugh RE

    . Quantified aneurysm shape and rupture risk. J Neurosurg 2005;102:355–62 pmid:15739566

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
13. 13.↵
    2. Ujiie H,
    3. Tamano Y,
    4. Sasaki K, et al

    . Is the aspect ratio a reliable index for predicting the rupture of a saccular aneurysm? Neurosurgery 2001;48:495–503; discussion 502–03 doi:10.1097/00006123-200103000-00007 pmid:11270538

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
14. 14.↵
    2. Rajabzadeh-Oghaz H,
    3. Varble N,
    4. Davies JM, et al

    . Computer-assisted adjuncts for aneurysmal morphologic assessment: toward more precise and accurate approaches. Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng 2017;10134 doi:10.1117/12.2255553 pmid:28867867

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    2. Xiang J,
    3. Antiga L,
    4. Varble N, et al

    . AView: an image-based clinical computational tool for intracranial aneurysm flow visualization and clinical management. Ann Biomed Eng 2016;44:1085–96 doi:10.1007/s10439-015-1363-y pmid:26101034

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    2. Xiang J,
    3. Varble N,
    4. Davies JM, et al

    . Initial clinical experience with AView: a clinical computational platform for intracranial aneurysm morphology, hemodynamics, and treatment management. World Neurosurg 2017;108:534–42 doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2017.09.030 pmid:28919570

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    2. Darsaut TE,
    3. Bing F,
    4. Salazkin I, et al

    . Flow diverters failing to occlude experimental bifurcation or curved sidewall aneurysms: an in vivo study in canines. J Neurosurg 2012;117:37–44 doi:10.3171/2012.4.JNS111916 pmid:22559845

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
18. 18.↵
    2. Damiano R,
    3. Tutino V,
    4. Paliwal N, et al

    . Compacting a single flow diverter versus overlapping flow diverters for intracranial aneurysms: a computational study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2017;38:603–10 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5062 pmid:28057633

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
19. 19.↵
    2. Wang K,
    3. Huang Q,
    4. Hong B, et al

    . Correlation of aneurysm occlusion with actual metal coverage at neck after implantation of flow-diverting stent in rabbit models. Neuroradiology 2012;54:607–13 doi:10.1007/s00234-011-0922-7 pmid:21874284

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
20. 20.↵
    2. Paliwal N,
    3. Yu H,
    4. Damiano R, et al

    . Fast virtual stenting with vessel-specific initialization and collision detection. In: Proceedings of the ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Buffalo, New York. August 17–20, 2014; V003T12A14–V03T12A14
21. 21.↵
    2. Paliwal N,
    3. Yu H,
    4. Xu J, et al

    . Virtual stenting workflow with vessel-specific initialization and adaptive expansion for neurovascular stents and flow diverters. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin 2016;19:1423–31 doi:10.1080/10255842.2016.1149573 pmid:26899135

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    2. Larrabide I,
    3. Kim M,
    4. Augsburger L, et al

    . Fast virtual deployment of self-expandable stents: method and in vitro evaluation for intracranial aneurysmal stenting. Med Image Anal 2012;16:721–30 doi:10.1016/j.media.2010.04.009 pmid:20627664

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
23. 23.↵
    2. Bing F,
    3. Darsaut TE,
    4. Salazkin I, et al

    . Stents and flow diverters in the treatment of aneurysms: device deformation in vivo may alter porosity and impact efficacy. Neuroradiology 2013;55:85–92 doi:10.1007/s00234-012-1082-0 pmid:22895818

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
24. 24.↵
    2. Makoyeva A,
    3. Bing F,
    4. Darsaut T, et al

    . The varying porosity of braided self-expanding stents and flow diverters: an experimental study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2013;34:596–602 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3234 pmid:22878007

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
25. 25.↵
    2. Paliwal N,
    3. Damiano RJ,
    4. Varble NA, et al

    . Methodology for computational fluid dynamic validation for medical use: application to intracranial aneurysm. J Biomech Eng 2017;139 doi:10.1115/1.4037792 pmid:8857116

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    2. Hanley JA,
    3. McNeil BJ

    . The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 1982;143:29–36 doi:10.1148/radiology.143.1.7063747 pmid:7063747

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
27. 27.↵
    2. Youden WJ

    . Index for rating diagnostic tests. Cancer 1950;3:32–35 doi:10.1002/1097-0142(1950)3:1<32::AID-CNCR2820030106>3.0.CO;2-3

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
28. 28.↵
    2. Paliwal N,
    3. Jaiswal P,
    4. Tutino VM, et al

    . Outcome prediction of intracranial aneurysm treatment by flow diverters using machine learning. Neurosurg Focus 2018;45:E7 doi:10.3171/2018.8.FOCUS18332 pmid:30453461

    CrossRefPubMed
29. 29.↵
    2. Chung B,
    3. Mut F,
    4. Kadirvel R, et al

    . Hemodynamic analysis of fast and slow aneurysm occlusions by flow diversion in rabbits. J Neurointerv Surg 2015;7:931–35 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2014-011412 pmid:25332410

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
30. 30.↵
    2. Damiano RJ,
    3. Ma D,
    4. Xiang J, et al

    . Finite element modeling of endovascular coiling and flow diversion enables hemodynamic prediction of complex treatment strategies for intracranial aneurysm. J Biomech 2015;48:3332–40 doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2015.06.018 pmid:26169778

    CrossRefPubMed
31. 31.↵
    2. Lin N,
    3. Brouillard AM,
    4. Krishna C, et al

    . Use of coils in conjunction with the Pipeline Embolization Device for treatment of intracranial aneurysms. Neurosurgery 2015;76:142–49 doi:10.1227/NEU.0000000000000579 pmid:25255261

    CrossRefPubMed
32. 32.↵
    2. Nossek E,
    3. Chalif DJ,
    4. Chakraborty S, et al

    . Concurrent use of the Pipeline Embolization Device and coils for intracranial aneurysms: technique, safety, and efficacy. J Neurosurg 2015;122:904–11 doi:10.3171/2014.12.JNS141259 pmid:25658781

    CrossRefPubMed
33. 33.↵
    2. Xiang J,
    3. Ma D,
    4. Snyder KV, et al

    . Increasing flow diversion for cerebral aneurysm treatment using a single flow diverter. Neurosurgery 2014;75:286–94; discussion 294 doi:10.1227/NEU.0000000000000409 pmid:24867201

    CrossRefPubMed
34. 34.↵
    2. Ma D,
    3. Xiang J,
    4. Choi H, et al

    . Enhanced aneurysmal flow diversion using a dynamic push-pull technique: an experimental and modeling study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2014;35:1779–85 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3933 pmid:24763414

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
35. 35.↵
    2. Jabbour P,
    3. Chalouhi N,
    4. Tjoumakaris S, et al

    . The Pipeline Embolization Device: learning curve and predictors of complications and aneurysm obliteration. Neurosurgery 2013;73:113–20; discussion 120 doi:10.1227/01.neu.0000429844.06955.39 pmid:23615106

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
36. 36.↵
    2. Farzin B,
    3. Brosseau L,
    4. Jamali S, et al

    . Flow diverters: inter and intra-rater reliability of porosity and pore density measurements. J Neurointerv Surg 2015;7:734–39 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2014-011240 pmid:25080508

    Abstract/FREE Full Text