IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0082311.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stent-Assisted Coiling versus Coiling in Treatment of Intracranial Aneurysm: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Yuan Hong
  • Yong-Jie Wang
  • Zheng Deng
  • Qun Wu
  • Jian-Min Zhang

Abstract

Background and Purpose: Stent-assisted coiling was initially invented for wide-neck aneurysms, but is now used for smaller berry aneurysms. The aim of this study was to compare the safety and efficiency of stent-assisted coiling with conventional coiling in treatment of intracranial aneurysms. Methods: A meta-analysis of studies that compared stent-assisted coiling with coiling only was conducted by searching English literatures via Pubmed, Medline and Cochrane Library databases without restricting the publication year. The primary outcomes in this study were immediate occlusion, progressive thrombosis rate, all-complication rate and angiographic recurrence. The secondary outcomes examined were packing density, mortality, permanent complication and thromboembolic complication rate. Results: Ten retrospective cohort studies were included. There is currently only one unfinished randomized study. Although the stent-assisted coiling group tended to show a lower initial occlusion rate than that of the coiling-only group (57.6% versus 68.7%; OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.30–1.44; P = 0.30), it achieved a significantly higher progressive thrombosis rate during follow up compared to that of the coiling only group (37.5% versus 19.4%; OR, 2.75; 95% CI, 1.95–3.86; P

Suggested Citation

  • Yuan Hong & Yong-Jie Wang & Zheng Deng & Qun Wu & Jian-Min Zhang, 2014. "Stent-Assisted Coiling versus Coiling in Treatment of Intracranial Aneurysm: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(1), pages 1-8, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0082311
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0082311
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0082311
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0082311&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0082311?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0082311. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.