Coil Type Does Not Affect Angiographic Follow-Up Outcomes of Cerebral Aneurysm Coiling: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

REFERENCES

1. 1.↵
   1. Rezek I,
   2. Mousan G,
   3. Wang Z,
   4. et al

   . Effect of core laboratory and multiple-reader interpretation of angiographic images on follow-up outcomes of coiled cerebral aneurysms: a systematic review and meta-analysis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2013;34:1380–84

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
2. 2.↵
   1. Linfante I,
   2. Akkawi NM,
   3. Perlow A,
   4. et al

   . Polyglycolide/polylactide-coated platinum coils for patients with ruptured and unruptured cerebral aneurysms: a single-center experience. Stroke 2005;36:1948–53

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
3. 3.↵
   1. Mitra D,
   2. Herwadkar A,
   3. Soh C,
   4. et al

   . Follow-up of intracranial aneurysms treated with Matrix detachable coils: a single-center experience. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007;28:362–67

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
4. 4.↵
   1. Ishii A,
   2. Murayama Y,
   3. Nien YL,
   4. et al

   . Immediate and midterm outcomes of patients with cerebral aneurysms treated with Matrix1 and Matrix2 coils: a comparative analysis based on a single-center experience in 250 consecutive cases. Neurosurgery 2008;63:1071–79

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
5. 5.↵
   1. Berenstein A,
   2. Song JK,
   3. Niimi Y,
   4. et al

   . Treatment of cerebral aneurysms with hydrogel-coated platinum coils (HydroCoil): early single-center experience. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2006;27:1834–40

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
6. 6.↵
   1. Deshaies EM,
   2. Adamo MA,
   3. Boulos AS

   . A prospective single-center analysis of the safety and efficacy of the Hydrocoil embolization system for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms. J Neurosurg 2007;106:226–33

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
7. 7.↵
   1. Gunnarsson T,
   2. Tong FC,
   3. Klurfan P,
   4. et al

   . Angiographic and clinical outcomes in 200 consecutive patients with cerebral aneurysm treated with hydrogel-coated coils. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009;30:1657–64

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
8. 8.↵
   1. Butteriss D,
   2. Gholkar A,
   3. Mitra D,
   4. et al

   . Single-center experience of Cerecyte coils in the treatment of intracranial aneurysms: initial experience and early follow-up results. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2008;29:53–56

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
9. 9.↵
   1. Geyik S,
   2. Yavuz K,
   3. Ergun O,
   4. et al

   . Endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms with bioactive Cerecyte coils: effects on treatment stability. Neuroradiology 2008;50:787–93

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
10. 10.↵
    1. White PM,
    2. Lewis SC,
    3. Gholkar A,
    4. et al

    . Hydrogel-coated coils versus bare platinum coils for the endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms (HELPS): a randomized controlled trial. Lancet 2011;377:1655–62

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
11. 11.↵
    1. Claiborne Johnson S,
    2. McDougal C,
    3. Gholkar A

    . The MAPS (Matrix and Platinum Science) Trial: primary results. In: Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Meeting of the Society of Neurointerventional Surgery, Colorado Springs, Colorado: July 25–28, 2011
12. 12.↵
    1. Molyneaux AJ,
    2. Fox A,
    3. Sneade M,
    4. et al

    . Cerecyte Coil Trial: angiographic and clinical outcomes of endovascular coiling in patients with ruptured and unruptured intracranial aneurysms treated with Cerecyte coils compared with bare platinum coils: finals results of a prospective randomized trial. In: Proceedings of the American Society of Neuroradiology 50th Annual Meeting and the Foundation of the ASNR Symposium, New York: April 21–26, 2012
13. 13.↵
    1. Smith MJ,
    2. Mascitelli J,
    3. Santillan A,
    4. et al

    . Bare platinum vs Matrix detachable coils for the endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms: a multivariate logistic regression analysis and review of the literature. Neurosurgery 2011;69:557–65

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
14. 14.↵
    1. White PM,
    2. Raymond J

    . Endovascular coiling of cerebral aneurysms using “bioactive” or coated-coil technologies: a systematic review of the literature. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009;30:219–26

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
15. 15.↵
    1. Moher D,
    2. Liberati A,
    3. Tetzlaff J,
    4. et al

    . Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 2009;151:264–69

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
16. 16.↵
    1. Roy D,
    2. Milot G,
    3. Raymond J

    . Endovascular treatment of unruptured aneurysms. Stroke 2001;32:1998–2004

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
17. 17.↵
    1. Clopper C,
    2. Pearson ES

    . The use of confidence or fiducial limits illustrated in the case of the binomial. Biometrika 1934;26:404–13

    FREE Full Text
18. 18.↵
    1. DerSimonian R,
    2. Laird N

    . Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clin Trials 1986;7:177–88

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
19. 19.↵
    1. Freemantle N,
    2. Cleland J,
    3. Young P,
    4. et al

    . Beta blockade after myocardial infarction: systematic review and meta regression analysis. BMJ 1999;318:1730–37

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
20. 20.↵
    1. Altman DG,
    2. Bland JM

    . Interaction revisited: the difference between two estimates. BMJ 2003;326:219

    FREE Full Text
21. 21.↵
    1. Julian PTH,
    2. Simon GT,
    3. et al

    . Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327:557–60

    FREE Full Text
22. 22.↵
    1. Egger M,
    2. Davey Smith G,
    3. Schneider M,
    4. et al

    . Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997;315:629–34

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
23. 23.↵
    1. Balshem H,
    2. Helfand M,
    3. Schunemann HJ,
    4. et al

    . GRADE guidelines: 3, rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:401–06

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
24. 24.↵
    1. Guyatt GH,
    2. Oxman AD,
    3. Vist G,
    4. et al

    . GRADE guidelines: 4, rating the quality of evidence–study limitations (risk of bias). J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:407–15

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
25. 25.↵
    1. Wells GA,
    2. Shea B,
    3. O'Connell D,
    4. et al

    . The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Third Symposium on Systematic Reviews: Beyond the Basics. 2000 July; Oxford, UK.
26. 26.↵
    1. Pierot L,
    2. Cognard C,
    3. Ricolfi F,
    4. et al

    . Mid-term anatomic results after endovascular treatment of ruptured intracranial aneurysms with GDC and Matrix coils: analysis of the CLARITY series. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:469–73

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
27. 27.↵
    1. Murayama Y,
    2. Viñuela F,
    3. Ishii A,
    4. et al

    . Initial clinical experience with Matrix detachable coils for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms. J Neurosurg 2006;105:192–99

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
28. 28.↵
    1. Park JH,
    2. Kang HS,
    3. Han MH,
    4. et al

    . Embolization of intracranial aneurysms with HydroSoft coils: results of the Korean multicenter study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011;32:1756–61

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
29. 29.↵
    1. Cloft HJ,
    2. Kallmes DF

    . Aneurysm packing with HydroCoil embolic system versus platinum coils: initial clinical experience. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2004;25:60–62

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
30. 30.↵
    1. O'Hare AM,
    2. Fanning NF,
    3. Ti JP,
    4. et al

    . HydroCoils, occlusion rates, and outcomes: a large single-center study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2010;31:1917–22

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
31. 31.↵
    1. Roth C,
    2. Struffert T,
    3. Grunwald IQ,
    4. et al

    . Long-term results with Matrix coils vs GDC: an angiographic and histopathological comparison. Neuroradiology 2008;50:693–99

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
32. 32.↵
    1. Piotin M,
    2. Spelle L,
    3. Mounayer C,
    4. et al

    . Intracranial aneurysms coiling with Matrix: immediate results in 152 patients and midterm anatomic follow-up from 115 patients. Stroke 2009;40:321–23

    Abstract/FREE Full Text