Acta Neurochirurgica

, Volume 161, Issue 6, pp 1165–1173 | Cite as

Long-term results of flow diversion in the treatment of intracranial aneurysms: a retrospective data analysis of a single center

  • Bora Korkmazer
  • Burak Kocak
  • Civan Islak
  • Naci Kocer
  • Osman KizilkilicEmail author
Original Article - Vascular Neurosurgery - Aneurysm
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Vascular Neurosurgery – Aneurysm



Endovascular techniques are frequently used for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms and flow diverter stents are relatively new and important devices in this field. The aim of our study is to report long-term follow-up results of flow diversion treatment.


We retrospectively examined angiographic images and clinical reports of 133 patients (female, 112 [84%]; mean age, 46.3 years [range, 12–70 years]) who were treated with flow diverters between 2008 and 2013 and were followed up radiologically at least 1 year. The aneurysms treated with flow diverters were assessed according to technical problems, stent patency, residual filling, re-growth, and occlusion status, and the patients were assessed according to morbidity and mortality.


Except for ten patients, one aneurysm was treated per patient. Median duration of the follow-up was 927 days. Total occlusion rates in angiographic follow-up were found 76.2% for the sixth-month, 86.7% for the first-year, 93.6% for the third-year, 94.2% for the fifth-year, and 90.2% for entire follow-up period. Nine stent morphology changes were observed in the angiographic controls. Overall mortality and morbidity rates were 3.7% and 4.3%, respectively.


Despite technical difficulties and delayed hemorrhages, flow diverter stents are effective tools for the treatment of challenging aneurysms in the long run. Nonetheless, long-term results of flow diversion treatment must be evaluated hemodynamically and clinically in multicenter studies.


Endovascular treatment Aneurysm Flow diversion Stent 


Compliance with ethical standards

All procedures performed in the studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of interest

NK and CI have consultancy and proctoring agreement with Microvention, Inc.

Study-cohort overlap

Some of the patients’ short- and mid-term results were reported in authors’ other previous studies. But the focus of this study is the long-term results.


  1. 1.
    Becske T, Brinjikji W, Potts MB et al (2017) Long-term clinical and angiographic outcomes following pipeline embolization device treatment of complex internal carotid artery aneurysms: five-year results of the pipeline for uncoilable or failed aneurysms trial. Neurosurgery 80(1):40–48Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Becske T, Potts MB, Shapiro M et al (2017) Pipeline for uncoilable or failed aneurysms: 3-year follow-up results. J Neurosurg 127(1):81–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Briganti F, Napoli M, Leone G, Marseglia M, Mariniello G, Caranci F, Tortora F, Maiuri F (2014) Treatment of intracranial aneurysms by flow diverter devices: long-term results from a single center. Eur J Radiol 83(9):1683–1690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brinjikji W, Murad MH, Lanzino G, Cloft HJ, Kallmes DF (2013) Endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms with flow diverters. Stroke 44(2):442–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Byrne JV, Beltechi R, Yarnold JA, Birks J, Kamran M (2010) Early experience in the treatment of intra-cranial aneurysms by endovascular flow diversion: a multicentre prospective study. PLoS One 5(9):e12492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cognard C, Pierot L, Anxionnat R, Ricolfi F, Clarity Study Group (2011) Results of embolization used as the first treatment choice in a consecutive nonselected population of ruptured aneurysms: clinical results of the Clarity GDC study. Neurosurgery 69(4):837–841 discussion 842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Faught RWF, Satti SR, Hurst RW, Pukenas BA, Smith MJ (2014) Heterogeneous practice patterns regarding antiplatelet medications for neuroendovascular stenting in the USA: a multicenter survey. J Neurointerv Surg 6(10):774–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fiorella D, Kelly ME, Albuquerque FC, Nelson PK (2009) Curative reconstruction of a giant midbasilar trunk aneurysm with the pipeline embolization device. Neurosurgery 64(2):212–217 discussion 217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gross BA, Frerichs KU (2013) Stent usage in the treatment of intracranial aneurysms: past, present and future. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 84(3):244–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Johnston SC, Dowd CF, Higashida RT, Lawton MT, Duckwiler GR, Gress DR, Investigators CARAT (2008) Predictors of rehemorrhage after treatment of ruptured intracranial aneurysms: the Cerebral Aneurysm Rerupture After Treatment (CARAT) study. Stroke 39(1):120–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Killer-Oberpfalzer M, Kocer N, Griessenauer CJ et al (2018) European multicenter study for the evaluation of a dual-layer flow-diverting stent for treatment of wide-neck intracranial aneurysms: the European flow-redirection intraluminal device study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 39(5):841–847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kocer N, Islak C, Kizilkilic O, Kocak B, Saglam M, Tureci E (2014) Flow re-direction endoluminal device in treatment of cerebral aneurysms: initial experience with short-term follow-up results: clinical article. J Neurosurg.
  13. 13.
    Kocer N, Mondel PK, Yamac E, Kavak A, Kizilkilic O, Islak C (2017) Is there an association between flow diverter fish mouthing and delayed-type hypersensitivity to metals?-a case-control study. Neuroradiology 59(11):1171–1178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kulcsár Z, Ernemann U, Wetzel SG, Bock A, Goericke S, Panagiotopoulos V, Forsting M, Ruefenacht DA, Wanke I (2010) High-profile flow diverter (silk) implantation in the basilar artery: efficacy in the treatment of aneurysms and the role of the perforators. Stroke 41(8):1690–1696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kulcsár Z, Houdart E, Bonafé A et al (2011) Intra-aneurysmal thrombosis as a possible cause of delayed aneurysm rupture after flow-diversion treatment. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 32(1):20–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lubicz B, Collignon L, Raphaeli G, Pruvo J-P, Bruneau M, De Witte O, Leclerc X (2010) Flow-diverter stent for the endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms. Stroke 41(10):2247–2253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lylyk P, Miranda C, Ceratto R, Ferrario A, Scrivano E, Luna HR, Berez AL, Tran Q, Nelson PK, Fiorella D (2009) Curative endovascular reconstruction of cerebral aneurysms with the pipeline embolization device: the Buenos Aires experience. Neurosurgery 64(4):632–642 discussion 642–3; quiz N6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Molyneux A, Kerr R, Stratton I, Sandercock P, Clarke M, Shrimpton J, Holman R, International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial (ISAT) Collaborative Group (2002) International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial (ISAT) of neurosurgical clipping versus endovascular coiling in 2143 patients with ruptured intracranial aneurysms: a randomised trial. Lancet 360(9342):1267–1274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Murayama Y, Nien YL, Duckwiler G, Gobin YP, Jahan R, Frazee J, Martin N, Viñuela F (2003) Guglielmi detachable coil embolization of cerebral aneurysms: 11 years’ experience. J Neurosurg 98(5):959–966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pierot L, Spelle L, Vitry F, Investigators ATENA (2008) Immediate clinical outcome of patients harboring unruptured intracranial aneurysms treated by endovascular approach: results of the ATENA study. Stroke 39(9):2497–2504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pumar JM, Banguero A, Cuellar H, Guimaraens L, Masso J, Miralbes S, Blanco-Ulla M, Vazquez-Herrero F, Souto M, Gelabert-Gonzalez M (2017) Treatment of intracranial aneurysms with the SILK embolization device in a multicenter study. A retrospective data analysis. Neurosurgery 81(4):595–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Szikora I, Berentei Z, Kulcsar Z, Marosfoi M, Vajda ZS, Lee W, Berez A, Nelson PK (2010) Treatment of intracranial aneurysms by functional reconstruction of the parent artery: the Budapest experience with the pipeline embolization device. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 31(6):1139–1147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tähtinen OI, Manninen HI, Vanninen RL, Seppänen J, Niskakangas T, Rinne J, Keski-Nisula L (2012) The silk flow-diverting stent in the endovascular treatment of complex intracranial aneurysms. Neurosurgery 70(3):617–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Turowski B, Macht S, Kulcsár Z, Hänggi D, Stummer W (2011) Early fatal hemorrhage after endovascular cerebral aneurysm treatment with a flow diverter (SILK-Stent): do we need to rethink our concepts? Neuroradiology 53(1):37–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Velioglu M, Kizilkilic O, Selcuk H, Kocak B, Tureci E, Islak C, Kocer N (2012) Early and midterm results of complex cerebral aneurysms treated with silk stent. Neuroradiology.
  26. 26.
    Wagner A, Cortsen M, Hauerberg J, Romner B, Wagner MP (2012) Treatment of intracranial aneurysms. Reconstruction of the parent artery with flow-diverting (silk) stent. Neuroradiology 54(7):709–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Walcott BP, Pisapia JM, Nahed BV, Kahle KT, Ogilvy CS (2011) Early experience with flow diverting endoluminal stents for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms. J Clin Neurosci 18(7):891–894CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyCanakkale Mehmet Akif Ersoy State HospitalCanakkaleTurkey
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyIstanbul Training and Research HospitalIstanbulTurkey
  3. 3.Department of Radiology, Division of NeuroradiologyIstanbul University-Cerrahpasa, Cerrahpasa Medical FacultyIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations