The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Late angiographic follow-up review of surgically treated aneurysms
Abstract
Object. This study was undertaken to evaluate the long-term angiographic outcome of surgically treated aneurysms, which is unknown. Specifically, the incidence of recurrent aneurysms, the fate of residual necks, and the de novo formation of aneurysms were evaluated. Methods. One hundred two patients (80 females and 22 males; mean age 49 years; range 12–78 years) harboring a total of 167 aneurysms underwent late follow-up angiography; 160 aneurysms were surgically treated. Late angiographic follow-up review was obtained at a mean of 4.4 ± 1.6 years postsurgery (range 2.6–9.7 years). Late follow-up angiography revealed two recurrent aneurysms (1.5%) of 135 clipped aneurysms without residua. Of 12 aneurysms with known residua, there were eight “dog-ear” residua, of which two (25%) enlarged. One hemorrhage was noted, yielding a hemorrhage risk of 1.9% per year. A second subgroup with broad-based residua revealed dramatic regrowth in three of four cases. Eight de novo aneurysms were found in six patients, for an annual risk of 1.8% per year. A history of multiple aneurysms was associated with de novo aneurysm formation (p = 0.049, chi-square analysis). Conclusions. This study confirms the long-term efficacy of aneurysm clip ligation. In addition, the authors found there is a small but significant risk of de novo aneurysm formation, particularly in patients with multiple aneurysms. Most residual aneurysm rests appear to remain stable, although a subset may enlarge or rupture. These findings support the rationale for late angiographic follow-up review in patients with aneurysms.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Regrowth of aneurysm sacs from residual neck following aneurysm clipping
Lin, T. S., Fox, A. J., & Drake, C. G. (1989) · Journal of neurosurgery · doi:10.3171/jns.1989.70.4.0556 · Cited by 319
Role of angiography following aneurysm surgery
Macdonald, R. L., Wallace, M. C., & Kestle, J. R. W. (1993) · Journal of neurosurgery · doi:10.3171/jns.1993.79.6.0826 · Cited by 255
Recurrence of ICA-PCoA aneurysms after neck clipping
Sakaki, T., TAKESHIMA, T., Tominaga, M., Hashimoto, H., & Kawaguchi, S. (1994) · Journal of neurosurgery · doi:10.3171/jns.1994.80.1.0058 · Cited by 102
Cited by
Thompson, B. G., Brown, R. D., Amin-Hanjani, S., Broderick, J. P., Cockroft, K. M., Connolly, E. S., Duckwiler, G. R., Harris, C. C., Howard, V. J., Johnston, S. C. (., et al. (2015) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/str.0000000000000070 · Cited by 1,046
Campi, A., Ramzi, N., Molyneux, A. J., Summers, P. E., Kerr, R. S. C., Sneade, M., Yarnold, J. A., Rischmiller, J., & Byrne, J. V. (2007) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.106.466987 · Cited by 553
Koivisto, T., Vanninen, R., Hurskainen, H., Saari, T., Hernesniemi, J., & Vapalahti, M. (2000) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/01.str.31.10.2369 · Cited by 393
Noble, A. J., Baisch, S., Covey, J., Mukerji, N., Nath, F., & Schenk, T. (2011) · Neurosurgery · doi:10.1227/neu.0b013e318216047e · Cited by 35
Metadata
- Authors
- David, C. A., Vishteh, A. G., Spetzler, R. F., Lemole, M., Lawton, M. T., & Partovi, S.
- Venue
- Journal of Neurosurgery
- Published
- 1999-09
- Volume
- 91
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 396-401
- ISSN
- 0022-3085 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2024062589
- Cited by
- 502
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 9.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Late angiographic follow-up review of surgically treated aneurysms. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3171/jns.1999.91.3.0396
- The paper
- David, C. A., Vishteh, A. G., Spetzler, R. F., Lemole, M., Lawton, M. T., & Partovi, S. (1999). Late angiographic follow-up review of surgically treated aneurysms. Journal of Neurosurgery. https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.1999.91.3.0396
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.