scholarly journals The analysis of treatment results of brain aneurysms rupture

2013 ◽  
Vol 0 (4) ◽  
pp. 23-28
Author(s):  
Mykola Zorin ◽  
Sergiy Grygoruk ◽  
Illya Plyushchev ◽  
Andriy Miroshnychenko ◽  
Yuri Cherednychenko ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 12-20
Author(s):  
D.J. Gunia ◽  
E.T. Ekvtimishvili ◽  
G.Z. Basiladze

Objective – to improve treatment results of patients with ruptured brain aneurysms using follow-up cerebral digital subtraction angiography to avoid de novo or aneurismal regrow.Materials and methods. Analysis of follow-up cerebral digital subtraction angiography and treatment results of two patient (60 and 64-year-old females) with brain anterior communicated artery de novo aneurysm and regrowed aneurysm of an anterior communicated artery after microsurgical clipping.Results. Two patient underwent endovascular treatment of ruptured brain aneurysms after non follow-up cerebral digital subtraction angiography. In first case de novo aneurysm of anterior communicating artery and in second – regrowed aneurys of anterior communicating artery after surgical clipping. Both patients were discharged from the clinic in I and IV modified Rankin scale. Conclusions. Digital subtraction angiography follow-up of intracranial aneurysms treated by endovascular or microsurgical approach is important for the detection and prediction for the risk of bleeding (aneurysm recurrence and de novo aneurysm). There exist no guidelines on the frequency of monitoring and imaging modality to adopt and the monitoring is adapted on a case-by-case basis. Digital subtraction angiography is the gold standard for the evaluation of aneurysmal occlusion after coiling and microsurgical clipping and remains also necessary for evaluating other devices.


2001 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
Robert H. Haralson

Abstract The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Fifth Edition, was published in November 2000 and contains major changes from its predecessor. In the Fourth Edition, all musculoskeletal evaluation and rating was described in a single chapter. In the Fifth Edition, this information has been divided into three separate chapters: Upper Extremity (13), Lower Extremity (14), and Spine (15). This article discusses changes in the spine chapter. The Models for rating spinal impairment now are called Methods. The AMA Guides, Fifth Edition, has reverted to standard terminology for spinal regions in the Diagnosis-related estimates (DRE) Method, and both it and the Range of Motion (ROM) Method now reference cervical, thoracic, and lumbar. Also, the language requiring the use of the DRE, rather than the ROM Method has been strengthened. The biggest change in the DRE Method is that evaluation should include the treatment results. Unfortunately, the Fourth Edition's philosophy regarding when and how to rate impairment using the DRE Model led to a number of problems, including the same rating of all patients with radiculopathy despite some true differences in outcomes. The term differentiator was abandoned and replaced with clinical findings. Significant changes were made in evaluation of patients with spinal cord injuries, and evaluators should become familiar with these and other changes in the Fifth Edition.


2014 ◽  
Vol 226 (02) ◽  
Author(s):  
W Balwierz ◽  
T Klekawka ◽  
A Moryl-Bujakowska ◽  
M Matysiak ◽  
I Malinowska ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 226 (02) ◽  
Author(s):  
A Varan ◽  
A Karhan ◽  
C Akyuz ◽  
B Aydin ◽  
B Yalcin ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document