Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Clip Versus Coil Debate

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Management of Cerebrovascular Disorders

  • 1019 Accesses

Abstract

Microsurgical clipping and endovascular coiling are effective treatment modalities for the treatment of unruptured and ruptured intracranial aneurysms. Several randomized controlled trials and numerous observational studies have compared these two modalities in the ruptured and unruptured settings, suggesting improved initial outcomes with endovascular coiling yet greater durability with microsurgical clipping. Due to the introduction of a number of novel devices to the endovascular armamentarium, with flow diverters being the most mature, as well as minimally invasive microsurgical approaches, the microsurgical clipping versus endovascular coiling debate has expanded to include new endovascular devices, hybrid treatments, and minimally invasive microsurgical approaches.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Smith RR, Zubkov YN, Tarassoli Y. The history of aneurysm surgery. In: Cerebral aneurysms: microvascular and endovascular management. New York: Springer US; 1994. p. 1–9.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Guglielmi G, Viñuela F, Duckwiler G, et al. Endovascular treatment of posterior circulation aneurysms by electrothrombosis using electrically detachable coils. J Neurosurg. 1992;77(4):515–24.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Rezek I, Mousan G, Wang Z, Murad MH, Kallmes DF. Coil type does not affect angiographic follow-up outcomes of cerebral aneurysm coiling: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Neuroradiol. 2013;34(9):1769–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Vanninen R, Koivisto T, Saari T, Hernesniemi J, Vapalahti M. Ruptured intracranial aneurysms: acute endovascular treatment with electrolytically detachable coils--a prospective randomized study. Radiology. 1999;211:325–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Koivisto T, Vanninen R, Hurskainen H, Saari T, Hernesniemi J, Vapalahti M. Outcomes of early endovascular versus surgical treatment of ruptured cerebral aneurysms. A prospective randomized study. Stroke. 2000;31(10):2369–77.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Molyneux AJ, Birks J, Clarke A, Sneade M, Kerr RSC. The durability of endovascular coiling versus neurosurgical clipping of ruptured cerebral aneurysms: 18 year follow-up of the UK cohort of the International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial (ISAT). Lancet. 2015;385(9969):691–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Scott RB, Eccles F, Molyneux AJ, Kerr RSC, Rothwell PM, Carpenter K. Improved cognitive outcomes with endovascular coiling of ruptured intracranial aneurysms: neuropsychological outcomes from the international subarachnoid aneurysm trial (ISAT). Stroke. 2010;41(8):1743–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ogilvy CS. Neurosurgical clipping versus endovascular coiling of patients with ruptured intracranial aneurysms. Stroke. 2003;34(10):2540–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Darsaut TE, Jack AS, Kerr RS, Raymond J. International subarachnoid aneurysm trial – ISAT part II: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2013;14(1):156.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Zaidi HA, Montoure A, Elhadi A, et al. Long-term functional outcomes and predictors of shunt-dependent hydrocephalus after treatment of ruptured intracranial aneurysms in the BRAT trial: revisiting the clip vs coil debate. Neurosurgery. 2015;76(5):608–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. McDougall CG, Spetzler RF, Zabramski JM, Partovi S, Hills NK, Nakaji P. The barrow ruptured aneurysm trial. J Neurosurg. 2015;123(September):609–17.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Lanzino G, Murad MH, D’Urso PI, Rabinstein AA. Coil embolization versus clipping for ruptured intracranial aneurysms: a meta-analysis of prospective controlled published studies. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2013;34(9):1764–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. McDonald JS, McDonald RJ, Fan J, Kallmes DF, Lanzino G, Cloft HJ. Comparative effectiveness of ruptured cerebral aneurysm therapies: propensity score analysis of clipping versus coiling. Am J Neuroradiol. 2014;35(1):164–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Connolly ES, Rabinstein AA, Carhuapoma JR, et al. Guidelines for the management of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2012;43(6):1711–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Steiner T, Juvela S, Unterberg A, Jung C, Forsting M, Rinkel G. European stroke organization guidelines for the management of intracranial aneurysms and subarachnoid haemorrhage. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2013;35(2):93–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. McCracken DJ, Lovasik BP, McCracken CE, et al. Resolution of oculomotor nerve palsy secondary to posterior communicating artery aneurysms: comparison of clipping and coiling. Neurosurgery. 2015;77(6):931–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bhatia S, Sekula RF, Quigley MR, Williams R, Ku A. Role of calcification in the outcomes of treated, unruptured, intracerebral aneurysms. Acta Neurochir. 2011;153(4):905–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Elijovich L, Higashida RT, Lawton MT, Duckwiler G, Giannotta S, Johnston SC. Predictors and outcomes of intraprocedural rupture in patients treated for ruptured intracranial aneurysms: the CARAT study. Stroke. 2008;39(5):1501–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Mahaney KB, Brown RD, Meissner I, et al. Age-related differences in unruptured intracranial aneurysms: 1-year outcomes. J Neurosurg. 2014;121(5):1024–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. McDonald JS, McDonald RJ, Fan J, Kallmes DF, Lanzino G, Cloft HJ. Comparative effectiveness of unruptured cerebral aneurysm therapies: propensity score analysis of clipping versus coiling. Stroke. 2013;44(4):988–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Thompson BG, Brown RD, Amin-Hanjani S, et al. Guidelines for the management of patients with unruptured intracranial aneurysms, Stroke. 2015;46(8):2368–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lad SP, Babu R, Rhee MS, et al. Long-term economic impact of coiling vs clipping for unruptured intracranial aneurysms. Neurosurgery. 2013;72(6):1000–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Nelson PK, Lylyk P, Szikora I, Wetzel SG, Wanke I, Fiorella D. The pipeline embolization device for the intracranial treatment of aneurysms trial. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2011;32(1):34–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Becske T, Kallmes DF, Saatci I, et al. Pipeline for uncoilable or failed aneurysms: results from a multicenter clinical trial. Radiology. 2013;267(3):858–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Becske T, Potts M, Shapiro M, Kallmes D, Nelson PK. Pipeline for uncoilable or failed aneurysms: 3-year follow-up results. J Neurosurg. 2016;14:1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Brinjikji W, Murad MH, Lanzino G, Cloft HJ, Kallmes DF. Endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms with flow diverters: a meta-analysis. Stroke. 2013;44(2):442–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Rouchaud A, Brinjikji W, Lanzino G, Cloft HJ, Kadirvel R, Kallmes DF. Delayed hemorrhagic complications after flow diversion for intracranial aneurysms: a literature overview. Neuroradiology. 2016;58(2):171–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Delgado Almandoz JE, Crandall BM, Scholz JM, et al. Last-recorded P2Y12 reaction units value is strongly associated with thromboembolic and hemorrhagic complications occurring up to 6 months after treatment in patients with cerebral aneurysms treated with the pipeline embolization device. Am J Neuroradiol. 2014;35:128–35.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Chalouhi N, Tjoumakaris S, Starke RM, et al. Comparison of flow diversion and coiling in large unruptured intracranial saccular aneurysms. Stroke. 2013;44(8):2150–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Turjman F, Levrier O, Combaz X, et al. EVIDENCE trial: design of a phase 2, randomized, controlled, multicenter study comparing flow diversion and traditional endovascular strategy in unruptured saccular wide-necked intracranial aneurysms. Neuroradiology. 2014;57(1):49–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Deshmukh VR, Kakarla UK, Figueiredo EG, Zabramski JM, Spetzler RF. Long-term clinical and angiographic follow-up of unclippable wrapped intracranial aneurysms. Neurosurgery. 2006;58(3):434–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Yoon MA, Kim E, Kwon B-J, et al. Muslinoma and muslin-induced foreign body inflammatory reactions after surgical clipping and wrapping for intracranial aneurysms: imaging findings and clinical features. J Neurosurg. 2010;112(3):640–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Safavi-Abbasi S, Moron F, Sun H, et al. Techniques and outcomes of gore-Tex clip-wrapping of ruptured and Unruptured cerebral aneurysms. World Neurosurg. 2016;90:281–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Di Santo M, Vaz G, Doquier MA, Raftopoulos C. Evaluation of a clip-reinforced wrapping technique with collagen-impregnated Dacron for intracranial aneurysms inaccessible to other treatment. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2015;138(2015):151–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Alaraj A, Wallace A, Dashti R, Patel P, Aletich V. Balloons in endovascular neurosurgery: history and current applications. Neurosurgery. 2014;74(2 SUPPL):163–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Fiorella D, Albuquerque FC, Masaryk TJ, Rasmussen PA, McDougall CG. Balloon-in-stent technique for the constructive endovascular treatment of “ultra-wide necked” circumferential aneurysms. Neurosurgery. 2005;57(6):1218-27-27. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16331170. Accessed 10 July 2014.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Cai K, Zhang Y, Shen L, Ni Y, Ji Q. Comparison of stent-assisted coiling and balloon-assisted coiling in the treatment of ruptured wide-necked intracranial aneurysms in the acute period. World Neurosurg. 2016;8750(16):30855.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Griessenauer CJ, Ogilvy CS, Foreman PM, et al. Pipeline embolization device for small intracranial aneurysms: evaluation of safety and efficacy in a multicenter cohort. Neurosurgery. 2017;80(4):579–87.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Linfante I, Mayich M, Sonig A, Fujimoto J, Siddiqui A, Dabus G. Flow diversion with Pipeline Embolic Device as treatment of subarachnoid hemorrhage secondary to blister aneurysms: dual-center experience and review of the literature. J Neurointerv Surg. 2016:neurintsurg-2016-012287.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Kallmes DF, Brinjikji W, Boccardi E, et al. Aneurysm study of pipeline in an observational registry (ASPIRe). Interv Neurol. 2016;5(1–2):89–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Chalouhi N, Starke RM, Yang S, et al. Extending the indications of flow diversion to small, unruptured, saccular aneurysms of the anterior circulation. Stroke. 2014;45(1):54–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Monteith SJ, Tsimpas A, Dumont AS, et al. Endovascular treatment of fusiform cerebral aneurysms with the Pipeline Embolization Device. J Neurosurg. 2014;120(4):945–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Delgado Almandoz JE, Crandall BM, Fease JL, et al. Successful endovascular treatment of three fusiform cerebral aneurysms with the pipeline embolization device in a patient with dilating HIV vasculopathy. J Neurointerv Surg. 2014;6(2):e12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Szikora I, Tura E. Evolution of flow-diverter Endothelialization and Thrombus Organization in Giant Fusiform Aneurysms after flow diversion: a histopathologic study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2015;36(9):1716–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. John S, Bain MD, Hussain MS, Bauer AM, Toth G. Long-term effect of flow diversion on large and giant aneurysms: MRI-DSA clinical correlation study. World Neurosurg. 2016;93:60–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Saatci I, Yavuz K, Ozer C, Geyik S, Cekirge HS. Treatment of intracranial aneurysms using the pipeline flow-diverter embolization device: a single-center experience with long-term follow-up results. Am J Neuroradiol. 2012;33(8):1436–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Kulcsár Z, Houdart E, Bonafé A, et al. Intra-aneurysmal thrombosis as a possible cause of delayed aneurysm rupture after flow-diversion treatment. Am J Neuroradiol. 2011;32(1):20–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Fox B, Humphries WE, Doss VT, Hoit D, Elijovich L, Arthur AS. Rupture of giant vertebrobasilar aneurysm following flow diversion: mechanical stretch as a potential mechanism for early aneurysm rupture. Case Reports. 2014;2014(oct29 1):bcr2014011325-bcr2014011325.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Nossek E, Chalif DJ, Chakraborty S, Lombardo K, Black KS, Setton A. Concurrent use of the pipeline embolization device and coils for intracranial aneurysms: technique, safety, and efficacy. J Neurosurg. 2015;122(April):904–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Siddiqui AH, Kan P, Abla AA, Hopkins LN, Levy EI. Complications after treatment with pipeline embolization for giant distal intracranial aneurysms with or without coil embolization. Neurosurgery. 2012;71(2):509–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Sorenson T, Brinjikji W, Lanzino G. Newer endovascular tools: a review of experimental and clinical aspects. J Neurosurg Sci. 2016;60(1):116–125. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26373669.

  52. Fischer S, Weber A, Carolus A, Drescher F, Götz F, Weber W. Coiling of wide-necked carotid artery aneurysms assisted by a temporary bridging device (Comaneci): preliminary experience. J Neurointerv Surg. 2016;neurintsurg-2016-012664.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Segawa H, Kohno M, Nakatomi H, Sano K, Saito I, Shiokwa Y. New aneurysm clip and applier for narrow spaces: technical note. Neurosurgery. 1999;45(4):939–43.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Krammer MJ, Lumenta CB. The new aneurysm clip system for particularly complex aneurysm surgery: technical note. Neurosurgery. 2010;66(6):336–8. https://doi.org/10.1227/01.NEU.0000369644.26132.56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Davies JM, Lawton MT. Advances in open microsurgery for cerebral aneurysms. Neurosurgery. 2014;74(2 SUPPL):7–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Mocco J, Komotar RJ, Raper DMS, Kellner CP, Connolly ES, Solomon RA. The modified pterional keyhole craniotomy for open cerebrovascular surgery: a new workhorse? J Neurol Surgery, Part A Cent Eur Neurosurg. 2013;74(6):400–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Yildirim AE, Divanlioglu D, Karaoglu D, Cetinalp NE, Belen AD. Pure endoscopic Endonasal clipping of an incidental anterior communicating artery aneurysm. J Craniofac Surg. 2015;26(4):1378–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Eloy JA, Carai A. Case report combined endoscope-assisted transclival clipping and endovascular stenting of a basilar trunk aneurysm: case report. Neurosurgery. 2008;62(March):142–3. https://doi.org/10.1227/01.NEU.0000297101.34508.43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Kassam AB, Mintz AH, Gardner PA, Horowitz MB, Carrau RL, Snyderman CH. The expanded endonasal approach for an endoscopic transnasal clipping and aneurysmorrhaphy of a large vertebral artery aneurysm: Technical case report. Neurosurgery. 2006;59(1 SUPPL. 1):162–5. https://doi.org/10.1227/01.NEU.0000220047.25001.F8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Gardner PA, Vaz-Guimaraes F, Jankowitz B, et al. Endoscopic endonasal clipping of intracranial aneurysms: surgical technique and results. World Neurosurg. 2015;84(5):1380–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Szentirmai O, Hong Y, Mascarenhas L, et al. Endoscopic endonasal clip ligation of cerebral aneurysms: an anatomical feasibility study and future directions. J Neurosurg. 2015;124(February):1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Crobeddu E, Lanzino G, Kallmes DF, Cloft HJ. Review of 2 decades of aneurysm-recurrence literature, part 1: reducing recurrence after endovascular coiling. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2013;34(2):266–70.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Johnston SC, Dowd CF, Higashida RT, Lawton MT, Duckwiler GR, Gress DR. Predictors of rehemorrhage after treatment of ruptured intracranial aneurysms: The Cerebral Aneurysm Rerupture After Treatment (CARAT) study. Stroke. 2008;39(1):120–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Molyneux A, Kerr R, Stratton I, et al. International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial (ISAT) of neurosurgical clipping versus endovascular coiling in 2143 patients with ruptured intracranial aneurysms: a randomised trial. Lancet (London, England). 2002;360(9342):1267–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Owen CM, Montemurro N, Lawton MT. Microsurgical management of residual and recurrent aneurysms after coiling and clipping: an experience with 97 patients. Neurosurgery. 2015;62(1):92–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Islak C. The retreatment: indications, technique and results. Eur J Radiol. 2013;82(10):1659–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Waldron JS, Halbach VV, Lawton MT. Microsurgical management of incompletely coiled and recurrent aneurysms: trends, techniques, and observations on coil extrusion. Neurosurgery. 2009;64(SUPPL. 5):301–15. https://doi.org/10.1227/01.NEU.0000335178.15274.B4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Li K, Cho YD, Kang HS, Kim JE, Han MH, Lee YM. Endovascular management for retreatment of postsurgical intracranial aneurysms. Neuroradiology. 2013;55(11):1345–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Adeeb N, Griessenauer CJ, Moore J, et al. Pipeline embolization device for recurrent cerebral aneurysms after microsurgical clipping. World Neurosurg. 2016;93:341–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology and Neurology, Kings County Hospital Center/SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY, USA

    Donnie L. Bell

  2. Interventional Neuroradiology, Department of Imaging, Monash Health and Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Ronil V. Chandra

  3. Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    Thabele M. Leslie-Mazwi & Joshua A. Hirsch

Authors
  1. Donnie L. Bell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ronil V. Chandra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Thabele M. Leslie-Mazwi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Joshua A. Hirsch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurosurgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA

    Alejandro M. Spiotta

  2. Department of Neurosurgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA

    Raymond D. Turner

  3. Department of Neurosurgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA

    M. Imran Chaudry

  4. Department of Neurosurgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA

    Aquilla S. Turk

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Bell, D.L., Chandra, R.V., Leslie-Mazwi, T.M., Hirsch, J.A. (2019). Clip Versus Coil Debate. In: Spiotta, A., Turner, R., Chaudry, M., Turk, A. (eds) Management of Cerebrovascular Disorders. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99016-3_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99016-3_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-99015-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-99016-3

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation