2021
DOI: 10.1177/15910199211054715
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Risk factors of recurrence after endovascular embolization of posterior communicating artery aneurysms

Abstract: Background and objective To determine the risk factors for recurrence after endovascular embolization of posterior communicating artery aneurysms (PcomA). Methods We retrospectively analyzed a cohort of 163 patients harboring 172 PocmAs who were treated with endovascular embolization from January 2019 to December 2020. The patients were divided into recurrence and stable groups depending on outcome. Univariate and logistic regression analyses were performed to determine the potential risk factors of recurrence… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

1
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 34 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The patients were admitted to the hospital for DSA examination at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively; the mean angiographic follow-up was (8.25 ± 1.68) months (range, 6-24 months). The immediate postoperative angiogram and follow-up images were evaluated according to the Raymond-Roy Occlusion Classification: [12][13][14] Complete occlusion was considered Raymond grade I, residual neck was considered Raymond grade II, and dome filling was defined as Raymond grade III. The follow-up outcome was assessed using the mRS score, the 0-3 score was regarded as a good outcome, and the 4-5 score was regarded as poor outcome.…”
Section: Treatment and Follow-upmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The patients were admitted to the hospital for DSA examination at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively; the mean angiographic follow-up was (8.25 ± 1.68) months (range, 6-24 months). The immediate postoperative angiogram and follow-up images were evaluated according to the Raymond-Roy Occlusion Classification: [12][13][14] Complete occlusion was considered Raymond grade I, residual neck was considered Raymond grade II, and dome filling was defined as Raymond grade III. The follow-up outcome was assessed using the mRS score, the 0-3 score was regarded as a good outcome, and the 4-5 score was regarded as poor outcome.…”
Section: Treatment and Follow-upmentioning
confidence: 99%