Neck Location on the Outer Convexity is a Predictor of Incomplete Occlusion in Treatment with the Pipeline Embolization Device: Clinical and Angiographic Outcomes

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Fiorella D,
   2. Woo HH,
   3. Albuquerque FC, et al

   . Definitive reconstruction of circumferential, fusiform intracranial aneurysms with the Pipeline Embolization Device. Neurosurgery 2008;62:1115–20; discussion 1120–21 doi:10.1227/01.neu.0000325873.44881.6e pmid:18580809

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
2. 2.↵
   1. Becske T,
   2. Kallmes DF,
   3. 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.↵
   1. Becske T,
   2. Brinjikji W,
   3. Potts MB, et al

   . Long-term clinical and angiographic outcomes following Pipeline Embolization Device treatment of complex internal carotid artery aneurysms: five-year results of the Pipeline for Uncoilable or Failed Aneurysms trial. Neurosurgery 2017;80:40–48 doi:10.1093/neuros/nyw014 pmid:28362885

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   1. Kallmes DF,
   2. Hanel R,
   3. Lopes D, et al

   . International retrospective study of the Pipeline Embolization Device: a multicenter aneurysm treatment study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2015;36:108–15 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4111 pmid:25355814

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
5. 5.↵
   1. Becske T,
   2. Potts MB,
   3. 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
6. 6.↵
   1. Nelson PK,
   2. Lylyk P,
   3. Szikora I, et al

   . The Pipeline Embolization Device for the intracranial treatment of aneurysms trial. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011;32:34–40 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2421

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
7. 7.↵
   1. Lylyk P,
   2. Miranda C,
   3. Ceratto R, et al

   . Curative endovascular reconstruction of cerebral aneurysms with the Pipeline Embolization Device: the Buenos Aires experience. Neurosurgery 2009;64:632–42 doi:10.1227/01.NEU.0000339109.98070.65 pmid:19349825

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
8. 8.↵
   1. Kallmes DF,
   2. Brinjikji W,
   3. 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
9. 9.↵
   1. Munich SA,
   2. Cress MC,
   3. Rangel-Castilla L, et al

   . Neck remnants and the risk of aneurysm rupture after endovascular treatment with coiling or stent-assisted coiling: much ado about nothing? Clin Neurosurg 2019;84:421–47 doi:10.1093/neuros/nyy056 pmid:29528449

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    1. Adeeb N,
    2. Moore JM,
    3. Wirtz M, et al

    . Predictors of incomplete occlusion following Pipeline embolization of intracranial aneurysms: is it less effective in older patients? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2017;38:2295–300 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5375 pmid:28912285

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
11. 11.↵
    1. Shapiro M,
    2. Becske T,
    3. Nelson PK

    . Learning from failure: persistence of aneurysms following Pipeline embolization. J Neurosurg 2017;126:578–85 doi:10.3171/2015.12.JNS152065 pmid:27153168

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    1. Madaelil TP,
    2. Grossberg JA,
    3. Howard BM, et al

    . Aneurysm remnants after flow diversion: clinical and angiographic outcomes. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2019;40:694–98 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A6010 pmid:30846433

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
13. 13.↵
    1. Liang B,
    2. Lesley WS,
    3. Robinson TM, et al

    . Off-label application of Pipeline Embolization Device for intracranial aneurysms. Neurointervention 2019;14:116–24 doi:10.5469/neuroint.2019.00073 pmid:31302986

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    1. Zhang Y,
    2. Liang F,
    3. Zhang Y, et al

    . Exploring the feasibility of Pipeline Embolization Device compared with stent-assisted coiling to treat non-saccular, unruptured, intradural vertebral artery aneurysms. Front Neurol 2019;10:275 doi:10.3389/fneur.2019.00275pmid:30972007

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    1. O’Kelly CJ,
    2. Spears J,
    3. Chow M, et al

    . Canadian experience with the Pipeline Embolization Device for repair of unruptured intracranial aneurysms. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2013;34:381–87 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3224 pmid:22859284

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
16. 16.↵
    1. Jabbour P,
    2. Chalouhi N,
    3. Tjoumakaris S, et al

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

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
17. 17.↵
    1. Li Y,
    2. Kim J,
    3. Ahmed A

    . Effect of aneurysm morphologic parameters on occlusion rates following Pipeline embolization. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2019;183:105395 doi:10.1016/j.clineuro.2019.105395 pmid:31254908

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    1. Wang K,
    2. Yuan S

    . Actual metal coverage at the neck is critical for flow-diverting stents in treating intracranial aneurysms. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2013;34:31–32 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3451 pmid:23449658

    FREE Full Text
19. 19.↵
    1. Wang K,
    2. Huang Q,
    3. 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.↵
    1. Jou LD,
    2. Chintalapani G,
    3. Mawad ME

    . Metal coverage ratio of Pipeline Embolization Device for treatment of unruptured aneurysms: reality check. Interv Neuroradiol 2016;22:42–48 doi:10.1177/1591019915617315 pmid:26628457

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    1. Brasiliense LBC,
    2. Aguilar-Salinas P,
    3. Miller DA, et al

    . Analysis of predictors and probability of aneurysm occlusion in the internal carotid artery after treatment with Pipeline Embolization Device. World Neurosurg 2017;107:641–48 doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2017.08.099 pmid:28844913

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    1. Puffer RC,
    2. Lanzino G,
    3. Kallmes D, et al

    . Patency of the ophthalmic artery after flow diversion treatment of paraclinoid aneurysms. J Neurosurg 2012;116:892–96 doi:10.3171/2011.11.JNS111612 pmid:22224787

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
23. 23.↵
    1. Raz E,
    2. Shapiro M,
    3. Becske T, et al

    . Anterior choroidal artery patency and clinical follow-up after coverage with the Pipeline Embolization Device. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2015;36:937–42 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4217 pmid:25572948

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
24. 24.↵
    1. Vedantam A,
    2. Rao VY,
    3. Shaltoni HM, et al

    . Incidence and clinical implications of carotid branch occlusion following treatment of internal carotid artery aneurysms with the Pipeline Embolization Device. Neurosurgery 2015;76:173–78 doi:10.1227/NEU.0000000000000595 pmid:25549190

    CrossRefPubMed
25. 25.↵
    1. Moshayedi H,
    2. Omofoye OA,
    3. Yap E, et al

    . Factors affecting the obliteration rate of intracranial aneurysms treated with a single Pipeline Embolization Device. World Neurosurg 2017;104:2–5 doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2017.04.111 pmid:28457931

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    1. Volker M,
    2. Anastasios M,
    3. Jan B

    , et al. Treatment of intracranial aneurysms with the Pipeline Embolization Device only: a single center experience. Neurointervention 2018;13;32–40 doi:10.5469/neuroint.2018.13.1.32 pmid:29535896

    CrossRefPubMed
27. 27.↵
    1. Chua MM,
    2. Silveira L,
    3. Moore J, et al

    . Flow diversion for treatment of intracranial aneurysms: mechanism and implications. Ann Neurol 2019;85:793–800 doi:10.1002/ana.25484 pmid:30973965

    CrossRefPubMed
28. 28.↵
    1. Schneiders JJ,
    2. VanBavel E,
    3. Majoie CB, et al

    . A flow-diverting stent is not a pressure-diverting stent. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2013;34:1–4 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2613 pmid:21852372

    FREE Full Text
29. 29.↵
    1. Kadirvel R,
    2. Ding YH,
    3. Dai D, et al

    . Cellular mechanisms of aneurysm occlusion after treatment with a flow diverter. Radiology 2014;270:394–99 doi:10.1148/radiol.13130796 pmid:24086073

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
30. 30.↵
    1. Zhang Y,
    2. Chong W,
    3. Qian Y

    . Investigation of intracranial aneurysm hemodynamics following flow diverter stent treatment. Med Eng Phys 2013;35:608–15 doi:10.1016/j.medengphy.2012.07.005 pmid:22884174

    CrossRefPubMed
31. 31.↵
    1. Chong W,
    2. Zhang Y,
    3. Qian Y, et al

    . Computational hemodynamics analysis of intracranial aneurysms treated with flow diverters: correlation with clinical outcomes. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2014;35:136–42 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3790 pmid:24287091

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
32. 32.↵
    1. Berg P,
    2. Saalfeld S,
    3. Janiga G, et al

    . Virtual stenting of intracranial aneurysms: a pilot study for the prediction of treatment success based on hemodynamic simulations. Int J Artif Organs 2018;41:698–705 doi:10.1177/0391398818775521 pmid:29783867

    CrossRefPubMed
33. 33.↵
    1. Paliwal N,
    2. Damiano RJ,
    3. Davies JM, et al

    . Association between hemodynamic modifications and clinical outcome of intracranial aneurysms treated using flow diverters. Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng 2017;10135:101352F doi:10.1117/12.2254584 pmid:28515570

    CrossRefPubMed
34. 34.↵
    1. Kalpakli A

    . Experimental study of turbulent flows through pipe bends. KTH Royal Institute of Technology 2012;6–29
35. 35.↵
    1. van Wyk S,
    2. Wittberg LP,
    3. Bulusu KV, et al

    . Non-Newtonian perspectives on pulsatile blood-analog flows in a 180° curved artery model. Physics of Fluids 2015;27:71901 doi:10.1063/1.4923311

    CrossRef
36. 36.↵
    1. Xu J,
    2. Wu Z,
    3. Yu Y, et al

    . Combined effects of flow diverting strategies and parent artery curvature on aneurysmal hemodynamics: a CFD study. PLoS One 2015;10:e0138648 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0138648 pmid:26398847

    CrossRefPubMed
37. 37.↵
    1. Marosfoi M,
    2. Langan ET,
    3. Strittmatter L, et al

    . In situ tissue engineering: endothelial growth patterns as a function of flow diverter design. J Neurointerv Surg 2017;9:994–98 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2016-012669 pmid:27707872

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
38. 38.↵
    1. Sadasivan C,
    2. Cesar L,
    3. Seong J, et al

    . An original flow diversion device for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms: evaluation in the rabbit elastase-induced model. Stroke 2009;40:952–58 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.108.533760 pmid:19150864

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
39. 39.↵
    1. Panchendrabose K,
    2. Muram S,
    3. Mitha AP

    . Promoting endothelialization of flow-diverting stents: a review. J Neurointerv Surg 2020 June 2. [Epub ahead of print] doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2020-015874 pmid:32487770

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
40. 40.↵
    1. Raymond J,
    2. Darsaut TE,
    3. Makoyeva A, et al

    . Endovascular treatment with flow diverters may fail to occlude experimental bifurcation aneurysms. Neuroradiology 2013;55:1355–63 doi:10.1007/s00234-013-1272-4 pmid:23989462

    CrossRefPubMed
41. 41.↵
    1. Hong B,
    2. Wang K,
    3. Huang Q, et al

    . Effects of metal coverage rate of flow diversion device on neointimal growth at side branch ostium and stented artery: an animal experiment in rabbit abdominal aorta. Neuroradiology 2012;54:849–55 doi:10.1007/s00234-011-0984-6 pmid:22170078

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
42. 42.↵
    1. Ma D,
    2. Dumont TM,
    3. Kosukegawa H, et al

    . High-Fidelity Virtual Stenting (HiFiVS) for intracranial aneurysm flow diversion: in vitro and in silico. Ann Biomed Eng 2013;41:2143–56 doi:10.1007/s10439-013-0808-4 pmid:23604850

    CrossRefPubMed
43. 43.↵
    1. Bing F,
    2. Darsaut TE,
    3. 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
44. 44.↵
    1. Aurboonyawat T,
    2. Blanc R,
    3. Schmidt P, et al

    . An in vitro study of Silk stent morphology. Neuroradiology 2011;53:659–67 doi:10.1007/s00234-010-0784-4 pmid:20981414

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
45. 45.↵
    1. Ma D,
    2. Xiang J,
    3. 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
46. 46.↵
    1. Lähteenvuo J,
    2. Rosenzweig A

    . Effects of aging on angiogenesis. Circ Res 2012;110:1252–63 doi:10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.111.246116 pmid:22539758

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
47. 47.↵
    1. Szikora I,
    2. Turányi E,
    3. Marosfoi M

    . Evolution of flow-diverter endothelialization and thrombus organization in giant fusiform aneurysms after flow diversion: a histopathologic study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2015;36:1716–20 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4336 pmid:26251428

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
48. 48.↵
    1. Gupta R,
    2. Ogilvy CS,
    3. Moore JM, et al

    . Proposal of a follow-up imaging strategy following Pipeline flow diversion treatment of intracranial aneurysms. J Neurosurg 2018;131:32–39 doi:10.3171/2018.2.JNS172673 pmid:30004284

    CrossRefPubMed