Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Contemporary endovascular and open aneurysm treatment in the era of flow diversion
  1. Marcus D Mazur,
  2. Philipp Taussky,
  3. Min S Park,
  4. William T Couldwell
  1. Department of Neurosurgery, Clinical Neurosciences Center, University of Utah, Salt Lake, Utah, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr William T Couldwell, Department of Neurosurgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake, Utah 84132, USA; neuropub{at}


Clinical outcomes have improved considerably over the last decade for patients with ruptured and unruptured aneurysms. Modern endovascular techniques, such as flow diversion, are associated with high aneurysm occlusion rates and have become a popular treatment modality for many types of aneurysms. However, the safety and effectiveness of flow diversion has not yet been established in trials comparing it with traditional aneurysm treatments. Moreover, there are some types of aneurysms that may not be appropriate for endovascular coiling, such as wide-necked aneurysms located at branch points of major vessels, large saccular aneurysms with multiple efferent arteries, dolichoectatic aneurysms, large aneurysms with mass effect, when there are technical complications with endovascular treatment, when patients cannot tolerate or have contraindications to antiplatelet therapy or in the setting of a subarachnoid haemorrhage. For these cases, open cerebrovascular surgery remains important. This review provides a discussion on the current trends and evidence for both flow diversion and open cerebrovascular surgery for complex aneurysms that may not be suitable for coiling. We emphasise a continued important role for surgical treatment in certain situations.

  • open cerebrovascular surger
  • endovascula
  • flow diversion
  • aneurysm
  • uptured
  • unruptured
  • subarachnoid hemorrhage
  • bypass
  • clipping
  • revascularization

Statistics from


  • Contributors Each of the named authors has contributed significantly to the preparation of this manuscript. MDM predominantly drafted the manuscript. PT and MP provided additional details and made important revisions. WC oversaw the preparation and reviewed and revised the manuscript.

  • Competing interests PT is a consultant/proctor for Medtronic.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Request Permissions

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.