Matrix2 Coils in Embolization of Intracranial Aneurysms: 1-Year Outcome and Comparison with Bare Platinum Coil Group in a Single Institution
============================================================================================================================================

* S.W. Youn
* S.-H. Cha
* H.-S. Kang
* Y.D. Cho
* M.H. Han

## Abstract

**BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:** The endosaccular occlusion by using BPC has been useful in the treatment of intracranial aneurysms, but its limited durability remains a deep-seated drawback. The Matrix2 coil, one of the bioactive-coated coils, had been developed to improve this limited durability. To evaluate durability of Matrix2 coils after embolization of intracranial aneurysms, we retrospectively compared 1-year outcomes with that of BPC groups.

**MATERIALS AND METHODS:** A group of 121 aneurysms in 114 patients were embolized by using Matrix2 coils between April 2006 and September 2008. The BPC group consisted of 151 aneurysms in 137 patients embolized by using BPCs alone between October 2007 and October 2008. The initial outcomes including packing densities, occlusion grades, and periprocedural complications, and the 1-year outcomes on MR angiography were retrospectively compared between the 2 groups.

**RESULTS:** The Matrix2 coil group and BPC group with similar baseline demographic characteristics revealed comparable initial outcomes. The rates of overall recurrence, major recanalization, and retreatment were 17.4%, 14.0%, and 10.7% versus 7.3%, 5.3%, and 4.6%, respectively (*P* = .066). However, the rates of subgroups with aneurysm volumes between 50 and 200 mm3 were 23.7%, 13.1%, and 10.5% versus 2.2%, 0%, and 0% (*P* = .022), respectively. The rates of subgroups with packing attenuation <30% were 38.3%, 31.9%, and 23.4% versus 13.3%, 11.7%, and 10% (*P* = .025), respectively. There were no differences in packing attenuation (*P* = .152), initial occlusion grade (*P* = .098), and 1-year outcomes (*P* = .209) according to the length of Matrix2 coils used.

**CONCLUSIONS:** Overall, initial and 1-year outcomes of the Matrix2 coil group were comparable to those of the BPC group. However, in certain subgroups of aneurysm volume and packing attenuation, the 1-year durability of Matrix2 coils was inferior to that of the BPC group.

## Abbreviations

BPC
:   bare platinum coil
DSA
:   digital subtraction angiography
INR
:   interventional neuroradiology
TOF
:   time-of-flight

The endosaccular occlusion of intracranial aneurysms by using detachable platinum coils has been useful to deal with both ruptured and unruptured intracranial aneurysms.1(#ref-2)(#ref-3)(#ref-4)–5 However, it has shown limited durability, which remains a deep-seated drawback of coil embolization.6,7 For durable aneurysm occlusion, the instant thrombosis that develops immediately after coiling between coil meshwork is not sufficient, and the organization into granulation tissue is essential to complete aneurysm occlusion.8,9 For organization of thrombus on coils, various modifications have been tried, and the platinum coil coated with polyglycolic/polylactic acid (Matrix; Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts) was 1 of the bioactive-coated coils designed to reinforce these healing reactions. Polyglycolic/polylactic acid is a bioabsorbable polymer that was used to coat coil surfaces, and it improved clot organization inside the cavity and promoted thicker neointimal tissue formation at the orifice in rabbit and canine aneurysm models.10(#ref-11)–12 But there have been clinical reports that the durability of the Matrix coil is comparable to or even worse than that of bare coils,13(#ref-14)(#ref-15)(#ref-16)(#ref-17)–18 because the miscarried elution of coated materials without intra-aneurysmal clot organization might cause the defect of coil meshwork.18 Thus, the Matrix2 coil was developed, and the ratio between polymer coating and core coils was modified by reducing the dosage of polyglycolic/polylactic acid from 70% in the old Matrix to 30% in the new Matrix2 (Fig 1). However, long-term data on the clinical effectiveness of this new coated coil are lacking.19,20

This retrospective study evaluated the 1-year outcomes of Matrix2 coils on the durability of endosaccular occlusion by comparing these with historical controls of BPCs in a single institution.

![Fig 1.](http://www.ajnr.org/https://www.ajnr.org/content/ajnr/32/9/1745/F1.medium.gif)

[Fig 1.](http://www.ajnr.org/content/32/9/1745/F1)

Fig 1. 
Matrix and Matrix2 coils. The polyglycolic/polylactic acid coating of the Matrix2 coil (*B*), with 30% of total coil volume, was reduced from the initial Matrix (*A*), with 70%, to prevent miscarried elution.

## Materials and Methods

### Patients and Aneurysms

Aneurysms were retrospectively enrolled from the INR data base of our institution into which all patients undergoing endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms were registered, according to the following criteria: 1) intracranial aneurysms treated by endosaccular coiling alone were included, but the coil embolization for dissecting aneurysm/pseudoaneurysm, thrombosed aneurysm, or parent artery sacrifice were excluded; 2) the combination with BPCs was allowed as long as the length of Matrix2 coils was >20% of total coil length used, but the use of other coated coils, including HydroCoils (MicroVention Terumo, Aliso Viejo, California), was excluded; and 3) initial treatment of aneurysms was included, but repeated embolization or treatment for postsurgical residual sac was excluded. In total, 121 aneurysms in 114 patients who underwent endosaccular coiling by using Matrix2 coils between April 2006 and September 2008 were eventually included for this study (Table 1). During the same period, 714 aneurysms in 626 patients were treated with coil embolization (201 aneurysms in 168 patients between April and December 2006, 266 aneurysms in 233 patients during 2007, and 247 aneurysms in 225 patients between January and September 2008). The Matrix2 group was composed of 32 male and 82 female patients (age, 55.5 ± 11.2 years [mean ± SD]; range, 25–78 years). There were 97 unruptured aneurysms. Of 24 ruptured aneurysms, there were 10 with Hunt and Hess grade II, 13 with grade III, and 1 with grade IV. There was no aneurysm with Hunt and Hess grade I. We located 90.9% (110/121) of the aneurysms in the anterior circulation. The locations were internal carotid artery, 50; posterior communicating artery, 21; middle cerebral artery, 12; anterior communicating artery, 24; anterior cerebral artery, 3; and posterior circulation, 11, including 7 basilar tip, 1 basilar trunk, 1 posterior cerebral artery, 1 superior cerebellar artery, and 1 vertebral artery.

View this table:
[Table 1:](http://www.ajnr.org/content/32/9/1745/T1)

Table 1: 
Comparison of demographic characteristics and initial coiling outcomes

The control group also was identified from the INR data base of our institution into which all patients undergoing endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysm were registered. There were 151 aneurysms in 137 patients (34 men and 103 women; age, 57.6 ± 11.1 [mean ± SD]; range, 34–80 years); these patients underwent endosaccular coiling by using BPCs alone between October 2007 and October 2008. There were 127 unruptured aneurysms. The Hunt and Hess grades of the other 24 aneurysms presenting with subarachnoid hemorrhage were grade II, 15; grade III, 6; and grade IV, 3. We located 90.1% (136/151) of the aneurysms in the anterior circulation, consisting of 67 internal cerebral artery, 15 posterior communicating artery, 31 anterior communicating artery, 10 anterior cerebral artery, and 13 middle cerebral artery. The 15 in the posterior circulation consisted of 10 basilar tip, 2 basilar trunk, 1 superior cerebellar artery, and 2 vertebral artery. Written informed consent for the interventional treatment was mandatory in all patients and our institutional review board approved this retrospective comparison study.

### Endovascular Treatment

Endosaccular coiling and DSA were performed by using a biplanar angiographic unit (Integris Allura; Phillips Medical Systems, Best, the Netherlands). Matrix2 coils were preferentially used for the initial framing, packing, and finishing. In case of packing difficulties with Matrix2 coils, BPCs were chosen among GDC (Boston Scientific), MicroPlex (MicroVention), and Trufill-DCS (Cordis Neurovascular, Miami Lakes, Florida). Before coiling, Matrix2 coils required preparation by flushing with normal saline. The neck remodeling techniques using multiple microcatheters, balloon, or stent, if needed, were combined to stabilize the coil frame and to control coil loop protrusion. In cases with unruptured aneurysm, the patients were given aspirin (325 mg) and clopidogrel (Plavix, 75 mg) the night before the procedure and systemic heparinization (loading dose of 3000 U followed by 1000 U/hr) during procedure. In ruptured aneurysm, systemic heparin was administered upon the operator's case by case decision which varied between no use and maintenance dosage after ensuring protected dome with coil packing. Systemic heparinization was discontinued at the end of the procedure. The coiling was completed with immediate angiographic controls, including frontal, lateral, and magnified working projection and 3D rotational images. The grade of aneurysm occlusion was assessed on the basis of a modified 3-point Raymond scale with consensus of 2 observers (S.W.Y., M.H.H.): “complete obliteration” when no contrast agents could be demonstrated within the aneurysm, “residual neck” when contrast agent filled the neck portion inside the parent vessel-aneurysm interface, and “residual aneurysm” if contrast filling extended into the aneurysm fundus beyond the parent vessel-aneurysm interface.21

### Calculation of Aneurysm Volume, Coil Volume, and Packing Attenuation

The aneurysm was assumed to be ellipsoid; aneurysm volume was estimated from the equation 4π (height/2) (length/2) (width/2)/3. Each diameter in 3 perpendicular axes was measured from 3D rotation angiography. Reconstruction of the 3D images by volume rendering was performed with the Integris 3D-RA release 3.2 software package (Philips Medical Systems). Coil volume for bare platinum coils and Matrix2 coils was calculated by using the formula π (OD/2) 2 L, in which OD is the outer diameter of coil and L is the length of coil. The packing densities of the Matrix2 coil group and bare coil group were then calculated by coil volume/aneurysm volume × 100%.

### Procedural Events

Procedure-related events including aneurysm perforation or leakage, thromboembolism, and coil protrusion or migration were assessed.

### Follow-Up Imaging and Interpretation

Follow-up imaging protocols included MR angiography at 6 months and 1 year. Based on the source images of 3D TOF MR angiography and maximum-intensity projections that were produced from standard vertical and horizontal rotation by 15°, residual intra-aneurysmal flow on the follow-up MR angiography was graded as “recurrence” and was further evaluated by DSA. If increased aneurysm flow was >2 mm, which necessitates or is amenable to retreatment embolization, it was regarded as “major recanalization”; otherwise, it was regarded as “minor recanalization.” The absence of intra-aneurysmal flow was graded as “stable occlusion.”

### Statistics

The parameters of the demographic characteristics of aneurysms, initial outcomes of endosaccular coiling, and 1-year follow-up outcomes were compared between the Matrix2 coil group and the BPC group by contingency table or mean comparison. The initial occlusion grades and packing densities according to the subgroup of aneurysm volumes, and 1-year follow-up outcomes according to the subgroup of aneurysm volumes, initial occlusion grades, and packing densities, were compared by the same methods. All statistics were performed by using SPSS 12.0 (SPSS, Chicago, Illinois), and a *P* value <.05 was considered significant.

## Results

### Comparison of Aneurysm Volumes

The volume of the 121 aneurysms in the Matrix2 coil group and 151 aneurysms in the BPC group was 129.5 ± 268.4 mm3 (mean ± SD; range, 10–1420 mm3) and 95.9 ± 204.6 mm3 (range, 10–1740 mm3), respectively (*P* = .243; Table 1). Sixty-seven aneurysms (55.4%) of the Matrix2 coil group and 90 aneurysms (59.6%) of the BPC group had a volume <50 mm3, 38 (31.4%) and 46 (30.5%) were between 50 and 200 mm3, and 16 (13.2%) and 15 (9.9%) were >200 mm3, respectively (*P* = .649).

### Initial Outcomes of Endosaccular Coiling

Endosaccular coiling was performed by using a single microcatheter in 44 aneurysms of the Matrix2 coil group (36.4%) and in 30 aneurysms of the BPC group (19.9%); by using multiple microcatheters in 33 aneurysms (27.3%) and 61 aneurysms (40.4%); by balloon remodeling in 34 aneurysms (28.1%) and 40 aneurysms (26.5%); and by assistance with stent placement in 10 (8.3%) aneurysms and 20 aneurysms (13.2%) in the Matrix2 coil and BPC groups, respectively.

Immediate control DSA demonstrated complete obliteration in 66.9% of the Matrix2 coil group (81/121) and 63.6% (96/151) of the BPC group, residual neck in 27.3% (33/121) and 31.8% (48/151), and residual aneurysm in 5.8% (7/121) and 4.6% (7/151), respectively. There was no difference in initial occlusion grade between the Matrix2 coil group and BPC group in the subgroups of volume <50, 50–200, and >200 mm3(*P* = .688).

The packing attenuation of the Matrix2 group and the BPC group was 32.4 ± 7.9% (mean ± SD; range, 14%–60%) and 31.2 ± 7.3% (range, 12%–48%; *P* = .181), respectively. There was no difference in packing attenuation between the Matrix2 coil group and the BPC group in the subgroups of volume <50 mm3, 50–200 mm3, and >200 mm3.

Thromboembolism occurred in the 10.7% (13/121) of the Matrix2 group and 6.0% (9/151) of the BPC group (*P* = .181); 0.8% (1/121) and 1.3% (2/151) of each group had symptomatic thromboembolism (*P* = 1.0). There was 1 delayed subarachnoid hemorrhage (0.8%) in the Matrix2 group and 2 perforations during coiling (1.3%) in the BPC group, 1 of which was without leakage (*P* = 1.0). Coil loop protrusion to parent artery lumen occurred in 1.7% (2/121) of the Matrix2 group and 5.3% (8/151; including a coil migration that was retrieved) of the BPC group (*P* = .193), which was managed with bail-out stent placement.

### Durability of Aneurysm Occlusion

MR angiography at 6-months and 1-year was acquired in all patients of both groups, and DSA was performed in only 26 aneurysms (26/121) in the Matrix2 group (5 stable occlusions, 21 overall recurrences, 17 major recanalizations [17/21] and 13 retreatments [13/17]) and 20 aneurysms (20/151) in the BPC group [9 stable occlusions, 11 overall recurrences, 8 major recanalizations [8/11], and 7 retreatments [7/8]). Among 17 aneurysms with major recanalizations (17/21) in the Matrix2 group, 13 aneurysms were retreated. And in the BPC group, 7 aneurysms were retreated among 8 aneurysms with major recanalizations (8/11). Five major recanalizations of the Matrix2 group and 3 major recanalizations of the BPC group were confirmed on the DSA performed <6 months after initial coiling.

The incidences of overall recurrence, major recanalization, and retreatment of the Matrix2 group and the BPC group were 17.4% (21/121) versus 7.3% (11/151), 14.0% (17/121) versus 5.3% (8/151), and 10.7% (13/121) versus 4.6% (7/151), respectively (*P* = .066; Table 2). Those aneurysms in the subgroup with a volume <50 and >200 mm3 were not different between the Matrix2 coil and the BPC group. However, those aneurysms with a volume between 50 and 200 mm3 were 23.7% (9/38) versus 2.2% (1/46), 13.1% (5/38) versus 0%, and 10.5% (4/38) versus 0%, respectively (*P* = .022).

View this table:
[Table 2:](http://www.ajnr.org/content/32/9/1745/T2)

Table 2: 
One-year follow-up outcomes of Matrix2 group and BPC group based on aneurysm volumes, initial occlusion grades, and packing density

The overall recurrence, major recanalization, and retreatment of the Matrix2 coil and the BPC groups in the subgroups of initial occlusion grade were not different.

The overall recurrence, major recanalization, and retreatment of the Matrix2 coil and the BPC groups in the subgroups of packing attenuation 30%–35% and >35% were not different. However, those with packing attenuation <30% were 38.3% (18/47) versus 13.3% (8/60), 31.9% (15/47) versus 11.7% (7/60), and 23.4% (11/47) versus 10% (6/60), respectively (*P* = .025).

The mean percentage length of Matrix2 coils was 71.1% (range, 16%–100%). For the 3 subgroups of lengths of Matrix2 coils that we used (Table 3), there were no differences in mean packing attenuation (*P* = .152), initial occlusion grade (*P* = .098), and 1-year follow-up outcomes (*P* = .209).

View this table:
[Table 3:](http://www.ajnr.org/content/32/9/1745/T3)

Table 3: 
Initial and 1-year follow-up outcomes according to length of Matrix2 coils used

## Discussion

There were no adverse side reactions that were related to coating material, eg, meningitis22 and perianeurysmal edema.23(#ref-24)–25 The incidence of residual neck slightly increased along with the increment of the percentage of length of Matrix2 coils, but it was not statistically significant. The technical disadvantages of Matrix coils have been adapted by the operator; the compartmentalization during coiling of multilobulated aneurysm could be overcome by microcatheter repositioning, and the friction and the stiffness during coiling were not severe enough to affect the initial results of coiling with the Matrix2 coils when compared with previous reports about Matrix coils.26(#ref-27)–28

The durability of aneurysm occlusion has been a major concern since the introduction of treatment of endosaccular occlusion by using detachable coils. Cognard et al29 reported that 14% of aneurysms (20/148) with initial complete occlusion recurred during a follow-up period between 3 and 30 months. Murayama et al30 reported that the overall recanalization rate of aneurysm occluded by using detachable platinum coils during their 11 years of observation was 20.9%, with slight improvement from 26.1% for the initial 5 years to 17.2% for the remaining 6 years.

Durable aneurysm occlusion requires the organization of the clot into granulation tissue between the coil meshwork and re-endothelialization at the aneurysm neck on the surface of the coil mass. To accelerate tissue reaction, bioactive polyglycolic/polylactic acid copolymer–coated Matrix coils were invented; coil diameter was increased to 0.03 cm (0.012 inch), and the platinum coil was coated with a bioactive polymer with a 3:7 ratio. The fibrous intercoil granulation response in the aneurysmal cavity and the production of thicker neointimal tissue at the orifice were identified in the canine bifurcation aneurysm model.12 However, in many reports, the packing attenuation was not improved, and overall recurrence rate ranged from 14.3% to 57.4%.13(#ref-14)–15,17,26,27,31,32 Because the combination of excessive polymer and less coil mass was considered as the cause of polymer absorption without healing reaction, resulting in recanalization,18 in Matrix2 coils the platinum coil was coated with a bioactive polymer with a 7:3 ratio.

Our outcomes of the Matrix2 coil group were in agreement with the analysis of D'Agostino et al,20 who reported a 23.7% recanalization rate, including 3.9% major recanalization, on 6-month follow-up, and 36.8% recanalization rate, including 15.8% major recanalization, on 1-year follow up among 100 aneurysms treated with the Matrix2 coil.20 However, our outcomes were worse than midterm angiographic outcomes of Ishii et al,19 who reported 9.4% recanalization rate, including 0% in small aneurysms with small necks, 5.6% in small aneurysms with wide necks, and 15.4% in large aneurysms, among 53 aneurysms treated with the Matrix2 coil. In our study, the positive effect of the Matrix2 coil was not seen, considering that the percentage length of the Matrix2 coil used did not make a difference in the 1-year follow-up outcomes. Instead, the aneurysm volume, initial occlusion grade, and packing attenuation were shown to be associated with higher recanalization rates, as also was seen in several BPC studies.33,34

We retrospectively compared the Matrix2 coil group to the historical controls of the BPC group, both of which were treated with the homogeneous coiling technique in the single institution during the uniform follow-up period. During the research period, there was no established strategy for coil selection among Matrix2, BPC, or other coils and their combined use, and different types of bioactive coils were not used in the same aneurysm. Location and size of the aneurysm did not dictate the type of coil to be chosen. Matrix2 coils were chosen mostly as the filling coil. However, there are several limitations in our study other than being a retrospective study. First, we included a large number of small-sized and unruptured aneurysms, which might have biased favorable outcomes. Second, our follow-up imaging was based on 3D TOF MR angiography, and only selected patients with suspected major recanalization underwent DSA. However, this strategy seems to be valid because detection of recurrence within the coiled aneurysm on MR angiography has shown similar results on DSA, and most missed recurrence is of very small size, <2 mm, that does not warrant retreatment.35(#ref-36)–37 Third, baseline MR angiography was not conducted immediately after coiling, and the interval change in aneurysm occlusion grade between immediate control and follow-up MR angiography could not been assessed. Fourth, there were some cases of susceptibility artifact by coil mass. However, the source images of MR angiography were carefully reviewed for the evaluation of aneurysm neck, and the anatomic result was clarified in most cases.36,37

## Conclusions

The endosaccular occlusion of intracranial aneurysms by using Matrix2 coils was feasible and safe, with similar compact packing, degree of occlusion, and complication in comparison with BPCs in our single institution experience. However, the 1-year durability of aneurysm occlusion by the use of Matrix2 coils was inferior to that of BPCs in the specific subgroups of aneurysm volume and packing attenuation. Considering cost-effectiveness and technical demands, there would be little benefit provided by the use of Matrix2 coils over BPCs.

## Footnotes

*   Disclosures: Moon Hee Han, *Consultant:* MicroVention, Boston Scientific Neurovascular, and Codman Neurovascular.

## References

1.  1. Viñuela F, Duckwiler G, Mawad M. Guglielmi detachable coil embolization of acute intracranial aneurysm: perioperative anatomical and clinical outcome in 403 patients. J Neurosurg 1997; 86: 475–82
    
    [CrossRef](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3171/jns.1997.86.3.0475&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=9046305&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fajnr%2F32%2F9%2F1745.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1997WJ26700008&link_type=ISI) 

2.  2. Raymond J, Roy D. Safety and efficacy of endovascular treatment of acutely ruptured aneurysms. Neurosurgery 1997; 41: 1235–45
    
    [CrossRef](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/00006123-199712000-00002&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=9402574&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fajnr%2F32%2F9%2F1745.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1997YH86300007&link_type=ISI) 

3.  3. Byrne JV, Sohn MJ, Molyneux AJ, et al. Five-year experience in using coil embolization for ruptured intracranial aneurysms: outcomes and incidence of late rebleeding. J Neurosurg 1999; 90: 656–63
    
    [CrossRef](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3171/jns.1999.90.4.0656&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10193610&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fajnr%2F32%2F9%2F1745.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000079366700007&link_type=ISI) 

4.  4. Molyneux AJ, Kerr RS, Stratton I, et al. 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
    
    [CrossRef](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0140-6736(02)11314-6&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=12414200&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fajnr%2F32%2F9%2F1745.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000178827200007&link_type=ISI) 

5.  5. Molyneux AJ, Kerr RS, Yu LM, et al. International subarachnoid aneurysm trial (ISAT) of neurosurgical clipping versus endovascular coiling in 2143 patients with ruptured intracranial aneurysms: a randomised comparison of effects on survival, dependency, seizures, rebleeding, subgroups, and aneurysm occlusion. Lancet 2005; 366: 809–17
    
    [CrossRef](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67214-5&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16139655&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fajnr%2F32%2F9%2F1745.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000231627000025&link_type=ISI) 

6.  6. Raymond J, Guilbert F, Weill A, et al. Long-term angiographic recurrences after selective endovascular treatment of aneurysms with detachable coils. Stroke 2003; 34: 1398–403
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6OToic3Ryb2tlYWhhIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjk6IjM0LzYvMTM5OCI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjIwOiIvYWpuci8zMi85LzE3NDUuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

7.  7. Li MH, Gao BL, Fang C, et al. Angiographic follow-up of cerebral aneurysms treated with Guglielmi detachable coils: an analysis of 162 cases with 173 aneurysms. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2006; 27: 1107–12
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoiYWpuciI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo5OiIyNy81LzExMDciO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czoyMDoiL2FqbnIvMzIvOS8xNzQ1LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

8.  8. Shimizu S, Kurata A, Takano M, et al. Tissue response of a small saccular aneurysm after incomplete occlusion with a Guglielmi detachable coil. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1999; 20: 546–48
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoiYWpuciI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo4OiIyMC80LzU0NiI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjIwOiIvYWpuci8zMi85LzE3NDUuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

9.  9. Groden C, Hagel C, Delling G, et al. Histological findings in ruptured aneurysms treated with GDCs: six examples at varying times after treatment. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2003; 24: 579–84
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoiYWpuciI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo4OiIyNC80LzU3OSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjIwOiIvYWpuci8zMi85LzE3NDUuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

10. 10. Murayama Y, Viñuela F, Tateshima S, et al. Bioabsorbable polymeric material coils for embolization of intracranial aneurysms: a preliminary experimental study. J Neurosurg 2001; 94: 454–63
    
    [CrossRef](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/00006123-200102000-00054&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11235951&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fajnr%2F32%2F9%2F1745.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000167157600013&link_type=ISI) 

11. 11. Murayama Y, Tateshima S, Gonzalez NR, et al. Matrix and bioabsorbable polymeric coils accelerate healing of intracranial aneurysms: long-term experimental study. Stroke 2003; 34: 2031–37
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6OToic3Ryb2tlYWhhIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjk6IjM0LzgvMjAzMSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjIwOiIvYWpuci8zMi85LzE3NDUuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

12. 12. Song JK, Niimi Y, Yoshino Y, et al. Assessment of Matrix coils in a canine model of a large bifurcation aneurysm. Neuroradiology 2007; 49: 231–35
    
    [CrossRef](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s00234-006-0177-x&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17318601&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fajnr%2F32%2F9%2F1745.atom) 

13. 13. Kang HS, Han MH, Kwon BJ, et al. Short-term outcome of intracranial aneurysms treated with polyglycolic acid/lactide copolymer-coated coils compared to historical controls treated with bare platinum coils: a single-center experience. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2005; 26: 1921–28
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoiYWpuciI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo5OiIyNi84LzE5MjEiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czoyMDoiL2FqbnIvMzIvOS8xNzQ1LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

14. 14. Niimi Y, Song J, Madrid M, et al. Endosaccular treatment of intracranial aneurysms using Matrix coils: early experience and midterm follow-up. Stroke 2006; 37: 1028–32
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6OToic3Ryb2tlYWhhIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjk6IjM3LzQvMTAyOCI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjIwOiIvYWpuci8zMi85LzE3NDUuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

15. 15. Fiorella D, Albuquerque FC, McDougall CG. Durability of aneurysm embolization with Matrix detachable coils. Neurosurgery 2006; 58: 51–59
    
    [CrossRef](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1227/01.NEU.0000194190.45595.9E&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16385329&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fajnr%2F32%2F9%2F1745.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000234453800011&link_type=ISI) 

16. 16. Katsaridis V, Papagiannaki C, Violaris C. Guglielmi detachable coils versus Matrix coils: a comparison of the immediate posttreatment results of the embolization of 364 cerebral aneurysms in 307 patients: a single-center, single-surgeon experience. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2006; 27: 1841–48
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoiYWpuciI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo5OiIyNy85LzE4NDEiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czoyMDoiL2FqbnIvMzIvOS8xNzQ1LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

17. 17. Mitra D, Herwadkar A, Soh C, 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](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoiYWpuciI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo4OiIyOC8yLzM2MiI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjIwOiIvYWpuci8zMi85LzE3NDUuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

18. 18. Kimchi TJ, Willinsky RA, Spears J, et al. Endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms with Matrix coils: immediate posttreatment results, clinical outcome and follow-up. Neuroradiology 2007; 49: 223–29
    
    [CrossRef](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s00234-006-0173-1&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17200868&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fajnr%2F32%2F9%2F1745.atom) 

19. 19. Ishii A, Murayama Y, Nien YL, 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: 1071–77
    
    [CrossRef](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1227/01.NEU.0000334047.30589.13&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19008767&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fajnr%2F32%2F9%2F1745.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000261643400023&link_type=ISI) 

20. 20. D'Agostino SJ, Harrigan MR, Chalela JA, et al. Clinical experience with Matrix2 360 degrees coils in the treatment of 100 intracranial aneurysms. Surg Neurol 2009; 72: 41–47
    
    [CrossRef](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.surneu.2009.02.014&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19559926&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fajnr%2F32%2F9%2F1745.atom) 

21. 21. Roy D, Milot G, Raymond J. Endovascular treatment of unruptured aneurysms. Stroke 2001; 32: 1998–2004
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6OToic3Ryb2tlYWhhIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjk6IjMyLzkvMTk5OCI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjIwOiIvYWpuci8zMi85LzE3NDUuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

22. 22. Meyers PM, Lavine SD, Fitzsimmons BF, et al. Chemical meningitis after cerebral aneurysm treatment using two second-generation aneurysm coils: report of two cases. Neurosurgery 2004; 55: 1222
    
    

23. 23. Marden FA, Putman CM. Perianeurysm edema with second-generation bioactive coils. Surg Neurol 2008; 69: 627–32
    
    [CrossRef](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.surneu.2007.01.069&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17976696&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fajnr%2F32%2F9%2F1745.atom) 

24. 24. Marchan EM, Sekula RF Jr.., Ku A, et al. Hydrogel coil-related delayed hydrocephalus in patients with unruptured aneurysms. J Neurosurg 2008; 109: 186–90
    
    [CrossRef](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3171/JNS/2008/109/8/0186&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18671628&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fajnr%2F32%2F9%2F1745.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000257958400004&link_type=ISI) 

25. 25. Fanning NF, Willinsky RA, ter Brugge KG. Wall enhancement, edema, and hydrocephalus after endovascular coil occlusion of intradural cerebral aneurysms. J Neurosurg 2008; 108: 1074–86
    
    [CrossRef](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3171/JNS/2008/108/6/1074&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18518706&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fajnr%2F32%2F9%2F1745.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000256245300003&link_type=ISI) 

26. 26. Lubicz B, Leclerc X, Gauvrit JY, et al. Endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms with Matrix coils: a preliminary study of immediate post-treatment results. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2005; 26: 373–75
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoiYWpuciI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo4OiIyNi8yLzM3MyI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjIwOiIvYWpuci8zMi85LzE3NDUuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

27. 27. Taschner CA, Leclerc X, Rachdi H, et al. Matrix detachable coils for the endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms: analysis of early angiographic and clinical outcomes. Stroke 2005; 36: 2176–80
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6OToic3Ryb2tlYWhhIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEwOiIzNi8xMC8yMTc2IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6MjA6Ii9ham5yLzMyLzkvMTc0NS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

28. 28. Murayama Y, Viñuela F, Ishii A, et al. Initial clinical experience with Matrix detachable coils for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms. J Neurosurg 2006; 105: 192–99
    
    [CrossRef](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3171/jns.2006.105.2.192&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17219822&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fajnr%2F32%2F9%2F1745.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000239534400009&link_type=ISI) 

29. 29. Cognard C, Weill A, Spelle L, et al. Long-term angiographic follow-up of 169 intracranial berry aneurysms occluded with detachable coils. Radiology 1999; 212: 348–56
    
    [CrossRef](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1148/radiology.212.2.r99jl47348&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10429689&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fajnr%2F32%2F9%2F1745.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000081565500008&link_type=ISI) 

30. 30. Murayama Y, Nien YL, Duckwiler G, et al. Guglielmi detachable coil embolization of cerebral aneurysms: 11 years' experience. J Neurosurg 2003; 98: 959–66
    
    [CrossRef](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3171/jns.2003.98.5.0959&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=12744354&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fajnr%2F32%2F9%2F1745.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000182619000010&link_type=ISI) 

31. 31. Linfante I, Akkawi NM, Perlow A, 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](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6OToic3Ryb2tlYWhhIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjk6IjM2LzkvMTk0OCI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjIwOiIvYWpuci8zMi85LzE3NDUuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

32. 32. Rivet DJ, Moran CJ, Mazumdar A, et al. Single-institution experience with Matrix coils in the treatment of intracranial aneurysms: comparison with same-center outcomes with the use of platinum coils. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007; 28: 1736–42
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoiYWpuciI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo5OiIyOC85LzE3MzYiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czoyMDoiL2FqbnIvMzIvOS8xNzQ1LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

33. 33. Tamatani S, Ito Y, Abe H, et al. Evaluation of the stability of aneurysms after embolization using detachable coils: correlation between stability of aneurysms and embolized volume of aneurysms. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2002; 23: 762–67
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoiYWpuciI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo4OiIyMy81Lzc2MiI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjIwOiIvYWpuci8zMi85LzE3NDUuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

34. 34. Piotin M., Spelle L., Mounayer C., et al. Intracranial aneurysms: treatment with bare platinum coils–aneurysm packing, complex coils, and angiographic recurrence. Radiology 2007; 243: 500–08
    
    [CrossRef](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1148/radiol.2431060006&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17293572&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fajnr%2F32%2F9%2F1745.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000246691500026&link_type=ISI) 

35. 35. Boulin A, Pierot L. Follow-up of intracranial aneurysms treated with detachable coils: comparison of gadolinium-enhanced 3D time-of-flight MR angiography and digital subtraction angiography. Radiology 2001; 219: 108–13
    
    [PubMed](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11274544&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fajnr%2F32%2F9%2F1745.atom) 

36. 36. Yamada N, Hayashi K, Murao K, et al. Time-of-flight MR angiography targeted to coiled intracranial aneurysms is more sensitive to residual flow than is digital subtraction angiography. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2004; 25: 1154–57
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoiYWpuciI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo5OiIyNS83LzExNTQiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czoyMDoiL2FqbnIvMzIvOS8xNzQ1LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

37. 37. Wallace RC, Karis JP, Partovi S, et al. Noninvasive imaging of treated cerebral aneurysms, part I: MR angiographic follow-up of coiled aneurysms. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007; 28: 1001–08
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoiYWpuciI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo5OiIyOC82LzEwMDEiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czoyMDoiL2FqbnIvMzIvOS8xNzQ1LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

*   Received November 14, 2010.
*   Accepted after revision January 29, 2011.


*   © 2011 by American Journal of Neuroradiology