This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of endovascular therapy versus neurosurgical clipping carried out for patients with unruptured middle cerebral artery bifurcation aneurysms (MCABAs). Patients diagnosed with MCABAs were enrolled in this prospective study according to the inclusion and exclusion standard. Enrolled patients were divided into a study group (endovascular therapy) and a control group (neurosurgical clipping), with 65 cases in each group. In terms of efficacy, we found that the proportion of Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) grade 1 after treatment in the study group was significantly higher than in the control group (p<0.001), while the proportion of GOS grades 2, 3, and 4 after treatment was significantly lower in the study group than in the control group (p<0.05). The postoperative brain injury indicators neuron-specific enolase and S100β in the study group were significantly lower than in the control group (p<0.001), and the postoperative life activity score of patients in the study group was significantly higher than in the control group (p<0.001). In terms of safety, the postoperative hospital stay of patients in the study group was significantly shorter than in the control group (p<0.001), and the incidence rate of postoperative pulmonary and intracranial infections in the study group was significantly lower than in the control group (p<0.05). Endovascular therapy for patients with unruptured MCABAs may be effective in improving outcomes and has better safety profile compared with neurosurgical clipping, but may increase the risk of postoperative recurrence.
- vascular surgical procedures
Data availability statement
Data sharing not applicable as no datasets generated and/or analyzed for this study.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
JL and CW contributed equally.
Contributors Concept and design of the work: JL, CW. Acquisition: JL, CW, YD, XC, XT, YL, XQ. Analysis: JL, CW, YD, XC, XT, YL, XQ. Drafting the paper: JL, CW. Revising the paper: XQ. Guarantor: XQ.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.