Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 390

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Aneurysm Rupture Following Treatment with Flow-Diverting Stents: Computational Hemodynamics Analysis of Treatment

Open access
Cebral, J.R., Mut, F., Raschi, M., Scrivano, E., Ceratto, R., Lylyk, P., Putman, C.M.·2011·American Journal of Neuroradiology

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Flow-diverting approaches to intracranial aneurysm treatment had many promising early results, but recent apparently successful treatments have been complicated by later aneurysm hemorrhage. We analyzed 7 cases of aneurysms treated with flow diversion to explore the possible rupture mechanisms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CFD analysis of pre- and posttreatment conditions was performed on 3 giant aneurysms that ruptured after treatment and 4 successfully treated aneurysms. Pre- and posttreatment hemodynamics were compared including WSS, relative blood flows, vascular resistances, and pressures, to identify the effects of flow-diverter placements. RESULTS: Expected reductions in aneurysm velocity and WSS were obtained, indicating effective flow diversion from the sac into the parent artery, consistent with periprocedural observations. In each case with postaneurysm rupture, the result of flow diversion led to an increase in pressure within the aneurysm. This pressure increase is related to larger effective resistance in the parent artery from placement of the devices and, in 2 cases, the reduction of a preaneurysm stenosis. CONCLUSIONS: Flow-diversion devices can cause intra-aneurysmal pressure increases, which can potentially lead to rupture, especially for giant aneurysms. This relates both to changes in the parent artery configuration, such as reduction of a proximal stenosis, and to the flow diversion into higher resistance parent artery pathways combined with cerebral autoregulation, leading to higher pressure gradients. These may be important effects that should be considered when planning interventions. Potentially dangerous cases could be identified with angiography and/or patient-specific CFD models.

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 · 10.3174/ajnr.a2398

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.

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

Cited by

See all 390

Metadata

Authors
Cebral, J. R., Mut, F., Raschi, M., Scrivano, E., Ceratto, R., Lylyk, P., & Putman, C. M.
Venue
American Journal of Neuroradiology
Published
2010-11-11
Volume
32
Issue
1
Pages
27-33
ISSN
  • 0195-6108 (ISSN-L)
  • 1936-959X
OpenAlex
W2171531249
Cited by
390
References
0
FWCI
16.67
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: Aneurysm Rupture Following Treatment with Flow-Diverting Stents: Computational Hemodynamics Analysis of Treatment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3174/ajnr.a2398
The paper
Cebral, J. R., Mut, F., Raschi, M., Scrivano, E., Ceratto, R., Lylyk, P., & Putman, C. M. (2011). Aneurysm Rupture Following Treatment with Flow-Diverting Stents: Computational Hemodynamics Analysis of Treatment. American Journal of Neuroradiology. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.a2398

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.