A Single Pipeline Embolization Device is Sufficient for Treatment of Intracranial Aneurysms

REFERENCES

1. 1.↵
   1. Becske T,
   2. Kallmes DF,
   3. Saatci I,
   4. et al

   . Pipeline for Uncoilable or Failed Aneurysms: results from a multicenter clinical trial. Radiology 2013;267:858–68

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
2. 2.↵
   1. Chalouhi N,
   2. Tjoumakaris S,
   3. Starke RM,
   4. et al

   . Comparison of flow diversion and coiling in large unruptured intracranial saccular aneurysms. Stroke 2013;44:2150–54

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
3. 3.↵
   1. Yu SC,
   2. Kwok CK,
   3. Cheng PW,
   4. et al

   . Intracranial aneurysms: midterm outcome of Pipeline embolization device: a prospective study in 143 patients with 178 aneurysms. Radiology 2012;265:893–901

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
4. 4.↵
   1. Tse MM,
   2. Yan B,
   3. Dowling RJ,
   4. et al

   . Current status of Pipeline embolization device in the treatment of intracranial aneurysms: a review. World Neurosurg 2013;80:829–35

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
5. 5.↵
   1. Altman DG

   . Practical Statistics for Medical Research. Boca Raton, Florida: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 1999
6. 6.↵
   1. Yavuz K,
   2. Geyik S,
   3. Saatci I,
   4. et al

   . Endovascular treatment of middle cerebral artery aneurysms with flow modification with the use of the Pipeline embolization device. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2014;35:529–35

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
7. 7.↵
   1. McAuliffe W,
   2. Wycoco V,
   3. Rice H,
   4. et al

   . Immediate and midterm results following treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms with the Pipeline embolization device. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:164–70

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
8. 8.↵
   1. Chalouhi N,
   2. Chitale R,
   3. Starke RM,
   4. et al

   . Treatment of recurrent intracranial aneurysms with the Pipeline embolization device. J Neurointerv Surg 2014;6:19–23

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
9. 9.↵
   1. Chalouhi N,
   2. Starke RM,
   3. Yang S,
   4. et al

   . Extending the indications of flow diversion to small, unruptured, saccular aneurysms of the anterior circulation. Stroke 2014;45:54–58

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
10. 10.↵
    1. Chalouhi N,
    2. Tjoumakaris S,
    3. Dumont AS,
    4. et al

    . Treatment of posterior circulation aneurysms with the Pipeline embolization device. Neurosurgery 2013;72:883–89

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
11. 11.↵
    1. Crobeddu E,
    2. Lanzino G,
    3. Kallmes DF,
    4. et al

    . Marked decrease in coil and stent utilization following introduction of flow diversion technology. J Neurointerv Surg 2013;5:351–53

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
12. 12.↵
    1. Brinjikji W,
    2. Murad MH,
    3. Lanzino G,
    4. et al

    . Endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms with flow diverters: a meta-analysis. Stroke 2013;44:442–47

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
13. 13.↵
    1. Lanzino G,
    2. Crobeddu E,
    3. Cloft HJ,
    4. et al

    . Efficacy and safety of flow diversion for paraclinoid aneurysms: a matched-pair analysis compared with standard endovascular approaches. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:2158–61

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
14. 14.↵
    1. Saatci I,
    2. Yavuz K,
    3. Ozer C,
    4. et al

    . Treatment of intracranial aneurysms using the Pipeline flow-diverter embolization device: a single-center experience with long-term follow-up results. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:1436–46

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
15. 15.↵
    1. Leung GK,
    2. Tsang AC,
    3. Lui WM

    . Pipeline embolization device for intracranial aneurysm: a systematic review. Clin Neuroradiol 2012;22:295–303

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    1. Deshmukh V,
    2. Hu YC,
    3. McDougall CG,
    4. et al

    . Histopathological assessment of delayed ipsilateral parenchymal hemorrhages after the treatment of paraclinoid aneurysms with the Pipeline embolization device. Neurosurgery 2012;71:E551–52
17. 17.↵
    1. Pierot L,
    2. Wakhloo AK

    . Endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms: current status. Stroke 2013;44:2046–54

    FREE Full Text
18. 18.↵
    1. Chalouhi N,
    2. Satti SR,
    3. Tjoumakaris S,
    4. et al

    . Delayed migration of a Pipeline embolization device. Neurosurgery 2013;72(2 suppl operative):ons229–34, discussion ons234

    PubMed
19. 19.↵
    1. Jabbour P,
    2. Chalouhi N,
    3. Tjoumakaris S,
    4. et al

    . The Pipeline embolization device: learning curve and predictors of complications and aneurysm obliteration. Neurosurgery 2013;73:113–20, discussion 120

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
20. 20.↵
    1. Chalouhi N,
    2. Tjoumakaris SI,
    3. Gonzalez LF,
    4. et al

    . Spontaneous delayed migration/shortening of the Pipeline embolization device: report of 5 cases. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2013;34:2326–30

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
21. 21.↵
    1. Fischer S,
    2. Vajda Z,
    3. Aguilar Perez M,
    4. et al

    . Pipeline embolization device (PED) for neurovascular reconstruction: initial experience in the treatment of 101 intracranial aneurysms and dissections. Neuroradiology 2012;54:369–82

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
22. 22.↵
    1. Kan P,
    2. Siddiqui AH,
    3. Veznedaroglu E,
    4. et al

    . Early postmarket results after treatment of intercrainal aneurysms with the Pipeline embolization device: a US multicenter experience. Neurosurgery 2012;71:1080–87

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
23. 23.↵
    1. O'Kelly CJ,
    2. Spears J,
    3. Chow M,
    4. et al

    . Canadian experience with the Pipeline embolization device for repair of unruptured intracranial aneurysms. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2013;34:381–87

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
24. 24.↵
    1. Lylyk P,
    2. Miranda C,
    3. Ceratto R,
    4. et al

    . Curative endovascular reconstruction of cerebral aneurysms with the Pipeline embolization device: the Buenos Aires experience. Neurosurgery 2009;64:632–42, discussion 642–43, quiz N6

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
25. 25.↵
    1. Chalouhi N,
    2. Tjoumakaris S,
    3. Gonzalez LF,
    4. et al

    . Coiling of large and giant aneurysms: complications and long-term results of 334 cases. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2014;35:546–52

    Abstract/FREE Full Text