Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Fig 1.
Geometry and 3D image of the aneurysm model.
- Fig 2.
Schematic diagram of the experimental setup.
- Fig 3.
Images in patient 1.
A, Angiogram illustrates the selection of an ROI.
B, Final mask.
- Fig 4.
Gray-scale intensity curves before and after stent placement.
A, In vitro study.
B, Raw data curves in patient 1 (AP projection).
- Fig 5.
Top, Lagged normal distribution representing convective portion of model. Bottom, Diffusive component of the model. Dotted line indicates the sigmoid constituent; dashed line, the element of exponential decay.
- Fig 6.
Model fits for the in vitro experiment (frame rate, 10 fps). Dotted line indicates data; solid line, model; dashed line and dash-and-dotted line, convection and diffusion components, respectively.
A, Before stent placement.
B, After stent placement.
- Fig 7.
Variation in model parameters for the in vitro experiment, before and after stent placement. Values correspond to the model-fit curves in shown Figure 6.
- Fig 8.
Model fit for patient 1 (AP projection; frame rate, 15 fps). Left, Before stent placement. Right, After stent placement. Dotted line represents data; solid line, the model; dashed line and dash-and-dotted line, convection and diffusion components of the model, respectively.
- Fig 9.
Variation in model parameters for patient 1, before and after stent placement. Values correspond to the model-fit curves shown in Figure 8.
- Fig 10.
Angiogram obtained at 3-month follow-up in patient 1 shows complete exclusion of the aneurysm from the circulation (AP projection).
Tables
Patient and Stage of Angiographic Data Collection Speed, fps Total No. of Frames Patient 1* Before stent 15 84 After stent 15 110 Follow-up at 24 h 15 137 Patient 2† No endovascular prostheses 5 18 One stent 5 20 One stent and coils 5 19 One stent and coils, after 2 mo 15 52 Two stents and coils 15 43 Patient 3‡ Before stent 5 20 After stent 5 29 Patient 4§ Before stent 15 59 After stent 15 110 Patient 5‖ Before stent 5 14 After stent 5 14 * Patient 1 had a fusiform aneurysm at the vertebrobasilar junction that was treated with a Magic S/P Wallstent, 4 × 47 mm (Boston Scientific).
† Patient 2 had a fusiform basilar trunk aneurysm that was treated with a S670 stent, 3.5 × 18 mm (Medtronic).
‡ Patient 3 had a fusiform aneurysm at the vertebrobasilar junction that was treated with a Dynalink stent, 6 × 38 mm (Guidant).
§ Patient 4 had a carotid-ophthalmic bifurcation aneurysm that was treated with an S7 AVE stent, 3.5 × 12 mm (Medtronic).
‖ Patient 5 had a wide-necked posterior inferior cerebellar artery aneurysm that was treated with an S7 AVE stent, 3.5 × 9 mm (Medtronic).
Patient and Run* ρconv, % ρdiff, % τconv, seconds τdiff, seconds Patient 1 Before stent 73.2 36.8 0.65 7.8 After stent 34.5 65.5 1.06 18.2 Patient 2 No devices 84.3 14.7 0.29 4.98 One stent 82.9 17.1 0.29 4.97 One stent and coils 89 11 0.53 4.95 One stent and coils, after 2 mo 91.4 8.6 0.03 4.17 Two stents and coils 69.4 30.6 0.07 5.1 Patient 3 Before stent 53 47 1.71 15 After stent 39 61.1 1.93 20 Patient 4 Before stent 99 0.95 0.5 1.56 After stent 90.3 9.7 0.53 9.71 Patient 5 Before stent 60.2 39.8 1.22 4.97 After stent 67 33.1 2.77 4.77
In this issue
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- Hemodynamic analysis of fast and slow aneurysm occlusions by flow diversion in rabbits
- Effect of aneurysm and ICA morphology on hemodynamics before and after flow diverter treatment
- Intra-Aneurysmal Pressure and Flow Changes Induced by Flow Diverters: Relation to Aneurysm Size and Shape
- An Original Flow Diversion Device for the Treatment of Intracranial Aneurysms: Evaluation in the Rabbit Elastase-Induced Model
- The Asymmetric Vascular Stent: Efficacy in a Rabbit Aneurysm Model
- Asymmetric Vascular Stent: Feasibility Study of a New Low-Porosity Patch-Containing Stent