Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 393

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Pipeline embolization device (PED) for neurovascular reconstruction: initial experience in the treatment of 101 intracranial aneurysms and dissections

Open access
Fischer, Sebastian, Vajda, Zsolt, Aguilar Perez, Marta, Schmid, Elisabeth, Hopf, Nikolai, Bäzner, Hansjörg, Henkes, Hans·2012·Neuroradiology

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the recently available flow diverter "pipeline embolization device" (PED) for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms and dissections. METHODS: Eighty-eight consecutive patients underwent an endovascular treatment of 101 intracranial aneurysms or dissections using the PED between September 2009 and January 2011. The targeted vessels include 79 (78%) in the anterior circulation and 22 (22%) in the posterior circulation. We treated 96 aneurysms and 5 vessel dissections. Multiple devices were implanted in 67 lesions (66%). RESULTS: One technical failure of the procedure was encountered. Immediate exclusion of the target lesion was not observed. Angiographic follow-up examinations were carried out in 80 patients (91%) with 90 lesions and revealed complete cure of the target lesion(s) in 47 (52%), morphological improvement in 32 lesions (36%), and no improvement in 11 lesions (12%). Six major complications were encountered: one fatal aneurysm rupture, one acute and one delayed PED thrombosis, and three hemorrhages in the dependent brain parenchyma. CONCLUSION: Our experience reveals that the PED procedure is technically straightforward for the treatment of selected wide-necked saccular aneurysms, fusiform aneurysms, remnants of aneurysms, aneurysms with a high likelihood of failure with conventional endovascular techniques, and dissected vessels. While vessel reconstruction, performed after dissection, is achieved within days, remodeling of aneurysmal dilatations may take several months. Dual platelet inhibition is obligatory. Parenchymal bleeding into brain areas dependent on the target vessel is uncommon.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00234-011-0948-x

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Cited by

See all 393

Metadata

Authors
Fischer, S., Vajda, Z., Aguilar Perez, M., Schmid, E., Hopf, N., Bäzner, H., & Henkes, H.
Venue
Neuroradiology
Published
2011-09-01
Volume
54
Issue
4
Pages
369-382
ISSN
  • 0028-3940 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-1920
OpenAlex
W2023921808
Cited by
393
References
6
FWCI
24.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Pipeline embolization device (PED) for neurovascular reconstruction: initial experience in the treatment of 101 intracranial aneurysms and dissections. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s00234-011-0948-x
The paper
Fischer, S., Vajda, Z., Aguilar Perez, M., Schmid, E., Hopf, N., Bäzner, H., & Henkes, H. (2012). Pipeline embolization device (PED) for neurovascular reconstruction: initial experience in the treatment of 101 intracranial aneurysms and dissections. Neuroradiology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-011-0948-x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.