High-Definition Zoom Mode, a High-Resolution X-Ray Microscope for Neurointerventional Treatment Procedures: A Blinded-Rater Clinical-Utility Study

References

1. 1.↵
   2. Nickoloff EL

   . AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents: physics of flat-panel fluoroscopy systems—survey of modern fluoroscopy imaging: flat-panel detectors versus image intensifiers and more. Radiographics 2011;31:591–602 doi:10.1148/rg.312105185 pmid:21415199

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
2. 2.↵
   2. Schropp L,
   3. Alyass NS,
   4. Wenzel A, et al

   . Validity of wax and acrylic as soft-tissue simulation materials used in in vitro radiographic studies. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2012;41:686–90 doi:10.1259/dmfr/33467269 pmid:22933536

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
3. 3.↵
   2. Ionita CN,
   3. Mokin M,
   4. Varble N, et al

   . Challenges and limitations of patient-specific vascular phantom fabrication using 3D Polyjet printing. Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng 2014;9038:90380M doi:25300886 pmid:25300886

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   2. Russ M,
   3. O'Hara R,
   4. Setlur Nagesh SV, et al

   . Treatment planning for image-guided neuro-vascular interventions using patient-specific 3D printed phantoms. Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng 2015;9417 doi:10.1117/12.2081997 pmid:26778878

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   2. Nelson PK,
   3. Lylyk P,
   4. Szikora I, et al

   . The Pipeline Embolization Device for the intracranial treatment of aneurysms trial. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011;32:34–40 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2421 pmid:21148256

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
6. 6.↵
   2. Uluc K,
   3. Kujoth GC,
   4. Baskaya MK

   . Operating microscopes: past, present, and future. Neurosurg Focus 2009;27:E4 pmid:19722819

   PubMed
7. 7.↵
   2. Rassweiler JJ,
   3. Teber D

   . Advances in laparoscopic surgery in urology. Nat Rev Urol 2016;13:387–99 doi:10.1038/nrurol.2016.70 pmid:27215426

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   2. Jain A,
   3. Bednarek DR,
   4. Ionita C, et al

   . A theoretical and experimental evaluation of the microangiographic fluoroscope: a high-resolution region-of-interest x-ray imager. Med Phys 2011;38:4112–26 doi:10.1118/1.3599751 pmid:21859012

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   2. Jain A,
   3. Bednarek DR,
   4. Rudin S

   . Experimental and theoretical performance analysis for a CMOS-based high-resolution image detector. Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng 2014;9033:90333P doi:10.1117/12.2043053 pmid:25300571

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    2. Kan P,
    3. Yashar P,
    4. Ionita CN, et al

    . Endovascular coil embolization of a very small ruptured aneurysm using a novel microangiographic technique: technical note. J Neurointerv Surg 2013;5:e2 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2011-010154 pmid:22266790

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
11. 11.↵
    2. Binning MJ,
    3. Orion D,
    4. Yashar P, et al

    . Use of the microangiographic fluoroscope for coiling of intracranial aneurysms. Neurosurgery 2011;69:1131–38 doi:10.1227/NEU.0b013e3182299814 pmid:21694658

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
12. 12.↵
    2. Starke RM,
    3. Turk A,
    4. Ding D, et al

    . Technology developments in endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms. J Neurointerv Surg 2016;8:135–44 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2014-011475 pmid:25412618

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
13. 13.↵
    2. Eller JL,
    3. Dumont TM,
    4. Sorkin GC, et al

    . The Pipeline embolization device for treatment of intracranial aneurysms. Expert Rev Med Devices 2014;11:137–50 doi:10.1586/17434440.2014.877188 pmid:24506298

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    2. Swee RG,
    3. Gray JE,
    4. Beabout JW, et al

    . Screen-film versus computed radiography imaging of the hand: a direct comparison. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997;168:539–42 doi:10.2214/ajr.168.2.9016243 pmid:9016243

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
15. 15.↵
    2. Piraino DW,
    3. Davros WJ,
    4. Lieber M, et al

    . Selenium-based digital radiography versus conventional film-screen radiography of the hands and feet: a subjective comparison. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999;172:177–84 doi:10.2214/ajr.172.1.9888764 pmid:9888764

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
16. 16.↵
    2. Mitchell B,
    3. Jou LD,
    4. Mawad M

    . Retrieval of distorted Pipeline embolic device using snare-loop. J Vasc Interv Neurol 2014;7:1–4 pmid:25566333

    PubMed
17. 17.↵
    2. Xiang J,
    3. Damiano RJ,
    4. Lin N, et al

    . High-fidelity virtual stenting: modeling of flow diverter deployment for hemodynamic characterization of complex intracranial aneurysms. J Neurosurg 2015;123:832–40 doi:10.3171/2014.11.JNS14497 pmid:26090829

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    2. Shapiro M,
    3. Raz E,
    4. Becske T, et al

    . Variable porosity of the Pipeline embolization device in straight and curved vessels: a guide for optimal deployment strategy. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2014;35:727–33 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3742 pmid:24072622

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
19. 19.↵
    2. Nossek E,
    3. Zumofen DW,
    4. Setton A, et al

    . Treatment of distal anterior cerebral artery aneurysms with the Pipeline Embolization Device. J Clin Neurosci 2017;35:133–38 doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2016.10.041 pmid:27863970

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    2. Puri AS,
    3. Massari F,
    4. Asai T, et al

    . Safety, efficacy, and short-term follow-up of the use of Pipeline Embolization Device in small (<2.5 mm) cerebral vessels for aneurysm treatment: single institution experience. Neuroradiology 2016;58:267–75 doi:10.1007/s00234-015-1630-5 pmid:26700827

    CrossRefPubMed