Your new experience awaits. Try the new design now and help us make it even better

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Neurol.

Sec. Endovascular and Interventional Neurology

Volume 16 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fneur.2025.1648848

Conventional Endovascular Treatment and Flow Diverter for Unruptured Small-and Medium-Sized Paraophthalmic Segment Aneurysms

Provisionally accepted
Kefeng  LiuKefeng Liu1yong  Sunyong Sun2fang  Liufang Liu1xin  Zhangxin Zhang3*Aimin  LiAimin Li2*
  • 1Digital Intelligence Neural Research Laboratory, Department of Neurosurgery, The Second People's Hospital of Changzhou, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, changzhou, China
  • 2Department of Neurosurgery, Lianyungang Clinical College of Nanjing Medical University, Lianyungang, China
  • 3Department of Neurosurgery, Jinling School of Clinical Medicine, Jinling Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Objective: The efficacy and safety of flow diverters (FD) compared to conventional endovascular treatment (CET) for treating small-and medium-sized intracranial aneurysms remain unclear. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of FD and CET in common small-and medium-sized paraophthalmic segment aneurysms (PSAs) in clinical practice, with the expectation of providing a basis for clinical treatment decisions for such aneurysms. Methods: This multicenter, retrospective cohort study included consecutive patients with unruptured small-and medium-sized ( ≤ 10 mm) PSAs treated at three neurosurgical centers between January 2018 and December 2023. Patients were assigned to the CET or FD group. The primary efficacy endpoint was the rate of complete aneurysm occlusion. The safety endpoints included perioperative and postoperative complications. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to verify the stability of the results. Subgroup analyses were conducted to identify the factors influencing clinical outcomes. Results: A total of 688 PSAs in 601 patients were analyzed, with 595 cases treated with CET and 93 cases treated with FD. The mean follow-up duration for all cases was 12.6 ± 12.9 months. The complete occlusion rate was significantly higher in the CET group than in the FD group (98.2% versus 66.7%, P < 0.001) at the last follow-up. However, the cumulative incidence of aneurysm occlusion increased over time in both groups, with no significant difference between the groups (log-rank test, P = 0.261). Compared with the CET group, the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for complete occlusion in the FD group was 0.632 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.307-1.299; P = 0.212). The FD group had a higher overall complication rate (12.0% versus 1.1%; P = 0.007); nevertheless, these complications did not significantly affect long-term functional outcomes. The findings remained robust after PSM. Subgroup analysis revealed that the efficacy advantage of CET was more prominent in older patients (≥ 65 years). Conclusion: The rates of complete occlusion for small-and medium-sized PSAs were not significantly different between CET and FD therapy. However, the procedural safety profile of FD requires careful consideration. CET demonstrated a more pronounced therapeutic benefit in elderly patients than in younger patients.

Keywords: paraophthalmic segment aneurysm, endovascular treatment, Flow diverter, efficacy and safety, Propensity score matching

Received: 20 Jun 2025; Accepted: 30 Sep 2025.

Copyright: © 2025 Liu, Sun, Liu, Zhang and Li. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence:
xin Zhang, zhangxin20240501@163.com
Aimin Li, liaimin2024@163.com

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.