| 摘要: |
| ［摘要］ 目的 比较Tubridge血流导向装置（TFD）与Pipeline血流导向装置（PED）治疗中大型颅内椎动脉夹层动脉瘤（IVADAs）的效果。方法 回顾性分析2019年1月至2024年12月于四川大学华西医院接受血流导向装置治疗的87例中大型IVADAs患者的临床资料，根据所用血流导向装置将其分为TFD组（接受TFD治疗，42例）和PED组（接受PED治疗，45例）。比较两组围术期相关指标、术后动脉瘤闭塞及支架内狭窄率、临床预后以及围术期并发症发生率。结果 两组手术时间、术后住院时间、植入支架数量比较差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。两组术后即刻、末次随访时O′Kelly-Marotta（OKM）分级比较差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。两组末次随访时支架内狭窄率比较差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。两组出院时、术后1个月及末次随访时的改良Rankin量表（mRS）评分情况比较差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。两组围术期并发症总发生率比较差异无统计学意义［16.67%（7/42） vs 6.67%（3/45）； χ2=1.266，P=0.261］。结论 TFD与PED治疗中大型IVADAs均能获得较好的临床预后，且安全性均较好。 |
| 关键词: Tubridge血流导向装置 Pipeline血流导向装置 颅内椎动脉夹层动脉瘤 临床预后 并发症 |
| DOI：10.3969/j.issn.1674-3806.2026.04.09 |
| 分类号: |
| 基金项目:2023年成都市医学科研课题项目（编号：2023208） |
|
| Comparison of the effects of Tubridge flow diverter and Pipeline embolization device in treatment of medium to large intracranial vertebral artery dissecting aneurysms |
|
LONG Qiangyou1,2, MA Yuhu1, SHANG Rui1, LI Sihao1, LEI Zhen2, QI Xinwei2, ZHANG Changwei1
|
|
1.Department of Neurosurgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China; 2.Department of Neurosurgery, Chengdu Seventh People′s Hospital, Chengdu 610200, China
|
| Abstract: |
| ［Abstract］ Objective To compare the effects of Tubridge flow diverter(TFD) and Pipeline embolization device(PED) in treatment of medium to large intracranial vertebral artery dissecting aneurysms(IVADAs). Methods The clinical data of 87 patients with medium to large IVADAs who received treatment with flow diverter devices in West China Hospital, Sichuan University from January 2019 to December 2024 were retrospectively analyzed. According to the flow diverter devices used, the patients were divided into TFD group(receiving TFD treatment, 42 patients) and PED group(receiving PED treatment, 45 patients). The perioperative related indicators, postoperative aneurysm occlusion and in-stent stenosis rate, clinical prognosis and incidence of perioperative complications were compared between the two groups. Results There were no significant differences in the operation time, the length of hospital stay after operation and the number of implanted stents between the two groups(P>0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in the O′Kelly-Marotta(OKM) grades immediately after the operation and at the last follow-up between the two groups(P>0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the in-stent stenosis rate between the two groups at the last follow-up(P>0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in the modified Rankin Scale(mRS) scores between the two groups at discharge from hospital, 1 month after the operation, and at the last follow-up(P>0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the total incidence of perioperative complications between the two groups［16.67%(7/42) vs 6.67%(3/45); χ2=1.266, P=0.261］. Conclusion Both TFD and PED can make the patients achieve good clinical prognosis and safety in the treatment of medium to large IVADAs. |
| Key words: Tubridge flow diverter(TFD) Pipeline embolization device(PED) Intracranial vertebral artery dissecting aneurysms(IVADAs) Clinical prognosis Complication |
