• Users Online: 1158
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 7  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 65-70

Dual-center study comparing transradial and transfemoral approaches for flow diversion treatment of intracranial aneurysms


1 Department of Neurological Surgery, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ, USA
2 Department of Neurology, Paul L. Foster School of Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, El Paso, TX, USA

Correspondence Address:
Priyank Khandelwal
Department of Neurosurgery and Neurology, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, 90 Bergen St, Suite 8100, Newark, NJ 07103
USA
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/bc.bc_38_20

Rights and Permissions

BACKGROUND: The transfemoral approach (TFA) has been the traditional approach for neurointerventional cases. While the TFA allows for triaxial support in flow diverting stent cases, it is associated with access site complications. Recently, the transradial approach (TRA) has emerged as a safer alternative to the TFA. To the best of our knowledge, there have only been single-center studies comparing outcomes in flow diverter cases for these approaches. We demonstrate the safety and feasibility of the TRA for placement of flow diverting stents in the treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms at two high-volume centers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of prospectively collected institutional databases at two high-volume neuroendovascular centers. Cases from 2016 to 2018 of unruptured intracranial aneurysms treated by flow diverting stenting accessed through either the TRA or the TFA were compared. Patient demographics, procedural and radiographic metrics including location and size of the aneurysm, size, and length of the flow diverter implant, and fluoroscopic time were recorded. Puncture site complications and length of hospital stay were also included in the data analysis. RESULTS: There were three out of 29 TRA cases which were converted to the TFA. None of the TRA patients experienced site complications, whereas three TFA patients experienced site complications. While TRA and TFA patients did not differ significantly in their exposure to radiation, TRA patients experienced shorter hospital stays. CONCLUSIONS: While long-term studies are still lacking regarding this approach, we demonstrate that the TRA is a safe and feasible approach for flow diverter stent placement.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed23213    
    Printed72    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded1984    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 4    

Recommend this journal