Search

Background and Object Complex intracranial aneurysms present a treatment challenge for both open and endovascular modalities of treatment. This report seeks to illustrate a series of patients with aneurysms treated with telescoping stents as a method of flow diversion for small and fusiform intracranial aneurysms. Material and Methods A retrospective evaluation of six patients treated with a telescoping stent technique utilizing available stents (at that time before the pipeline era) for complex cerebral aneurysms between January 2009 and January 2010 was performed. Five patients had dissecting aneurysms and one patient had a small superior hypophyseal artery aneurysm. One of the patients was treated in the setting of a Hunt and Hess grade IV subarachnoid hemorrhage. Follow-up cerebral angiography was performed postprocedure at 6 months. Results At amean follow-up period of 9months, all the patients experienced complete or near-complete occlusion (>95%). No periprocedural complications were noted in this series. No episodes of hemorrhage or thromboembolic complications occurred. Conclusions Overlapping Neuroform and Enterprise stents may induce complete thrombosis of intracranial aneurysms and facilitate parent artery remodeling. The use of self-expanding stents is still an adequate treatmentmodality, especially if there is a need for vessel wall stabilization rather than flow diversion. The technique is also a sufficient alternative in small intracranial aneurysms not readily amenable to open surgical treatment or traditional endovascular coil embolization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: 5 self-expanding intracranial stents Neuroform (N), Wingspan (W), Solitaire (S), Leo( + ) (L), and Enterprise (E) were subjected to an in vitro examination and comparison of their physical features and functional properties in order to better understand the clinical advantages and potential limitations of each device. Material and Methods: The following features were examined for each stent: visual appearance, radial strength, wall apposition, bending stiffness, gator backing, kink resistance, ovalization, vessel wall coverage, cell size, ease of delivery. Results: Given are rankings for the 5 stents: radial force at 50 % oversizing: L < N < E < S < W; radial force at 15 % oversizing L < E < S < N < W; wall apposition: E < N = W < S; bending stiffness: N < L < W < S < E; gator backing: N and W only; kink resistance: N = W < E < S < L; ovalization: W < L < S < N < E; vessel wall coverage: S < E < N < W < L; cell size: L < W < E < N < S; ease of delivery: W < N < L < E < S. A comparative analysis of the in vitro test results with the clinical experience of the authors is presented in this paper. Conclusion: The 5 stents have fundamentally different features and there is no stent that is superior in all tested aspects. The selection in an individual treatment should be based on clinical and technical requirements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]