The efficacy comparison of spring coil embolization under auxiliary technology and stent implantation spring coil embolization in the treatment of intracranial aneurysms

Abstract

Objective To compare the clinical effect of spring coil embolization under auxiliary technology and stent implantation spring coil embolization in treatment of intracranial aneurysms. Methods The medical records of 102 patients with intracranial aneurysms who were treated by endovascular embolization were retrospectively analyzed. These patients were divided into stent implantation spring coil embolization (n=58) and auxiliary spring coil embolization group (n=44) according to different treatment methods. The therapeutic effect of postoperative aneurysm embolization for patients of the two groups was evaluated. The postoperative hospitalization time, NIHSS score, ADL score and prognosis of patients in the two groups 6 months after treatment were compared. The incidence of complications of patients in the two groups was compared. Results There was no significant difference between the two groups about complete embolization rate, sub-total embolization rate and partial embolization rate after aneurysm surgery (72.73%, 20.45%, 6.82% vs 68.97%, 25.86%, 5.17%) (P>0.05) . The postoperative hospitalization time of patients in the assistive coil embolization group (10.45±2.32) d was significantly less than that in the stent-assisted coil embolization (12.97±2.56) d (P 0.05) ]. The recovery rate of patients in the assistive coil embolization group (68.18%) was significantly higher than that in the stent-assisted coil embolization group (55.17%) (P 0.05) . Conclusion Compared with stent implantation spring coil embolization, the spring coil embolization under auxiliary technology can significantly shorten the postoperative hospitalization time, improve the prognosis and reduce the incidence of postoperative complications. Key words: Spring coil embolism; Intracranial aneurysm; Balloon; Double microcatheter; Micro godet; Stents