Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of Intracranial Aneurysms Treated by 2-D Versus 3-D Coils: A Matched-Pairs Analysis

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Neuroradiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

Knowledge on the influence of 2D and 3D coils to occlude intracranial aneurysms is poor. Therefore, aim of our analysis was to evaluate whether the use of 3-D versus 2-D coils alone may improve the efficacy of endovascular aneurysm treatment.

Patients and Methods

We performed a matched pair analysis comparing aneurysms treated by 3-D coils as initial “framing” coils to aneurysms treated exclusively by 2-D coils. Number of coils, implanted coil length/volume, and associated packing density were calculated. Aneurysmal occlusion was assessed and monitored 6 months (DSA; magnetic resonance angiography (MRA)) and 18 months (MRA) after embolization. Periprocedural complications and retreatment rate of each group were analyzed.

Results

Our retrospective analysis revealed 50 pairs. Concerning the 3-D group, number of coils (353 in total, median 7; p = 0.002), implanted coil length (55.69  ± 48.4 cm), implanted coil length per volume (5.92 mm/mm3), and packing density (30 %; p = 0.017) was higher than in the 2-D group (259 in total, median 5 coils; 38.52 ± 43.13 cm; 4.54 mm/mm3; 23 %). Occlusion was not significantly different immediately after treatment but at 6 and 18 months follow-up in favor of 3-D coils. Retreatment was performed in 2 cases of the 3-D group and in 3 cases of the 2-D group and therefore in a similar range (p = 0.564).

Conclusion

Initial use of 3-D coils revealed a higher packing density and a higher long-term occlusion. Therefore, we recommend initial use of 3-D coils.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Molyneux A, Kerr R, Stratton I, Sandercock P, Clarke M, Shrimpton J, Holman R, International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial (ISAT) Collaborative Group. International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial (ISAT) of neurosurgical clipping versus endovascular coiling in 2143 patients with ruptured intracranial aneurysms: a randomised trial. Lancet. 2002;360:1267–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Brinjikji W, Rabinstein AA, Nasr DM, Lanzino G, Kallmes DF, Cloft HJ. Better outcomes with treatment by coiling relative to clipping of unruptured intracranial aneurysms in the United States, 2001–2008. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2011;32:1071–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Raymond J, Guilbert F, Weill A, Georganos SA, Juravsky L, Lambert A, Lamoureux J, Chagnon M, Roy D. Long-term angiographic recurrences after selective endovascular treatment of aneurysms with detachable coils. Stroke. 2003;34:1398–403.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Byrne JV, Sohn MJ, Molyneux AJ, Chir B. Five-year experience in using coil embolization for ruptured intracranial aneurysms: outcomes and incidence of late rebleeding. J Neurosurg. 1999;90:656–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Spetzler RF, McDougall CG, Albuquerque FC, Zabramski JM, Hills NK, Partovi S, Nakaji P, Wallace RC. The barrow ruptured aneurysm trial: 3-year results. J Neurosurg. 2013;119:146–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Sellar R, Molyneux A, ISAT Collaborative Group. ISAT: the international subarachnoid aneurysm trail. Lessons and update. Interv Neuroradiol. 2008;14(Suppl. 1):50–1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Sluzewski M, van Rooij WJ, Rinkel GJ, Wijnalda D. Endovascular treatment of ruptured intracranial aneurysms with detachable coils: long-term clinical and serial angiographic results. Radiology. 2003;227:720–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Vallée JN, Pierot L, Bonafé A, Turjman F, Flandroy P, Berge J, Rodesch G, Bracard S. Endovascular treatment of intracranial wide-necked aneurysms using three-dimensional coils: predictors of immediate anatomic and clinical results. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2004;25:298–306.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sluzewski M, van Rooij WJ, Slob MJ, Bescós JO, Slump CH, Wijnalda D. Relation between aneurysm volume, packing, and compaction in 145 cerebral aneurysms treated with coils. Radiology. 2004;231:653–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Guglielmi G, Viñuela F, Briganti F, Duckwiler G. Carotid-cavernous fistula caused by a ruptured intracavernous aneurysm: endovascular treatment by electro thrombosis with detachable coils. J Neurosurg. 1992;31:591–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Taschner CA, Leclerc X, Gauvrit JY, Kerkeni A, El-Mahdy M, Lejeune JP, Pruvo JP. Safety of endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms with a new, complex shaped Guglielmi detachable coil. Neuroradiology. 2007;49:761–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Molyneux AJ, Clarke A, Sneade M, Mehta Z, Coley S, Roy D, Kallmes DF, Fox AJ. Cerecyte coil trial: angiographic outcomes of a prospective randomized trial comparing endovascular coiling of cerebral aneurysms with either cerecyte or bare platinum coils. Stroke. 2012;43:2544–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 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. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2013;34:1769–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. White PM, Lewis SC, Gholkar A, Sellar RJ, Nahser H, Cognard C, Forrester L, Wardlaw JM, HELPS trial collaborators. Hydrogel-coated coils versus bare platinum coils for the endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms (HELPS): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2011;377:1655–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. McDougall CG, Johnston SC, Gholkar A, Barnwell SL, Vazquez Suarez JC, Massó Romero J, Chaloupka JC, Bonafe A, Wakhloo AK, Tampieri D, Dowd CF, Fox AJ, Imm SJ, Carroll K, Turk AS, MAPS Investigators. Bioactive versus bare platinum coils in the treatment of intracranial aneurysms: the MAPS (Matrix and Platinum Science) Trial. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2014;35:935–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Guglielmi G, Vinuela F, Dion J, Duckwiler G. Electrothrombosis of saccular aneurysms via endovascular approach. Part 2: preliminary clinical experience. J Neurosurg. 1991;75:8–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Roy D, Milot G, Raymond J. Endovascular treatment of unruptured aneurysms. Stroke. 2001;32:1998–2004.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Piotin M, Daghman B, Mounayer C, Spelle L, Moret J. Ellipsoid approximation versus 3D rotational angiography in the volumetric assessment of intracranial aneurysms. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2006;27:839–42.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Vallée JN, Pierot L, Mont’alverne F, Turjman F, Bonafé A, Bracard S, Lo D, Crozier S, Duffau H, Barragan-Campos HM, Jean B, Guillevin R, Chiras J. Unruptured intracranial aneurysms treated by three-dimensional coil embolization: evaluation of the postoperative aneurysm occlusion volume. Neuroradiology. 2005;47:438–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Linfante I, DeLeo MJ, Gounis MJ, Brooks CS, Wakhloo AK. Cerecyte versus platinum coils in the treatment of intracranial aneurysms: packing attenuation and clinical and angiographic midterm results. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2009;30:1496–501.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Bendszus M, Bartsch AJ, Solymosi L. Endovascular occlusion of aneurysms using a new bioactive coil: a matched pair analysis with bare platinum coils. Stroke. 2007;38:2855–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. D’Agostino SJ, Harrigan MR, Chalela JA, Nicholas JS, Deveikis SI, Jones TM, Deveikis JP. Clinical experience with Matrix2 360 degrees coils in the treatment of 100 intracranial aneurysms. Surg Neurol. 2009;72:41–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Taschner CA, Thines L, El-Mahdy M, Rachdi H, Gauvrit JY, Lejeune JP, Pruvo JP, Leclerc X. GDC 360 degrees for the endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms: a matched-pair study analysing angiographic outcomes with GDC 3D Coils in 38 patients. Neuroradiology. 2009;51:45–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neuroradiology, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Schwabachanlage 6, 91054, Erlangen, Germany

    S. Lang, J. Rösch, P. Gölitz, S. Kloska, T. Struffert & A. Doerfler

Authors
  1. S. Lang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Rösch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. P. Gölitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. Kloska
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. T. Struffert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. A. Doerfler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Lang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lang, S., Rösch, J., Gölitz, P. et al. Comparison of Intracranial Aneurysms Treated by 2-D Versus 3-D Coils: A Matched-Pairs Analysis. Clin Neuroradiol 27, 43–49 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00062-015-0408-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00062-015-0408-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation