Chen, Stephen

OBJECTIVE Traditionally, stent-assisted coiling and balloon remodeling have been the primary endovascular treatments for wide-necked intracranial aneurysms with complex morphologies. PulseRider is an aneurysm neck reconstruction device that provides parent vessel protection for aneurysm coiling. The objective of this study was to report early postmarket results with the PulseRider device. METHODS This study was a prospective registry of patients treated with PulseRider at 13 American neurointerventional centers following FDA approval of this device. Data collected included clinical presentation, aneurysm characteristics, treatment details, and perioperative events. Follow-up data included degree of aneurysm occlusion and delayed (> 30 days after the procedure) complications. RESULTS A total of 54 aneurysms were treated, with the same number of PulseRider devices, across 13 centers. Fourteen cases were in off-label locations (7 anterior communicating artery, 6 middle cerebral artery, and 1 A 1 segment anterior cerebral artery aneurysms). The average dome/neck ratio was 1.2. Technical success was achieved in 52 cases (96.2%). Major complications included the following: 3 procedure-related posterior cerebral artery strokes, a device-related intraoperative aneurysm rupture, and a delayed device thrombosis. Immediately postoperative Raymond-Roy occlusion classification (RROC) class 1 was achieved in 21 cases (40.3%), class 2 in 15 (28.8%), and class 3 in 16 cases (30.7%). Additional devices were used in 3 aneurysms. For those patients with 3- or 6-month angiographic follow-up (28 patients), 18 aneurysms (64.2%) were RROC class 1 and 8 (28.5%) were RROC class 2. CONCLUSIONS PulseRider is being used in both on- and off-label cases following FDA approval. The clinical and radiographic outcomes are comparable in real-world experience to the outcomes observed in earlier studies. Further experience is needed with the device to determine its role in the neurointerventionalist’s armamentarium, especially with regard to its off-label use.

Abstract Objectives Working Group 2 was convened to address topics relevant to prosthodontics and dental implants. Systematic reviews were developed according to focused questions addressing (a) the number of implants required to support fixed full‐arch restorations, (b) the influence of intentionally tilted implants compared to axial positioned implants when supporting fixed dental prostheses ( FDP s), (c) implant placement and loading protocols, (d) zirconia dental implants, (e) zirconia and metal ceramic implant supported single crowns and (f) zirconia and metal ceramic implant supported FDP s. Materials and methods Group 2 considered and discussed information gathered in six systematic reviews. Group participants discussed statements developed by the authors and developed consensus. The group developed and found consensus for clinical recommendations based on both the statements and the experience of the group. The consensus statements and clinical recommendations were presented to the plenary (gathering of all conference attendees) and discussed. Final versions were developed after consensus was reached. Results A total of 27 consensus statements were developed from the systematic reviews. Additionally, the group developed 24 clinical recommendations based on the combined expertise of the participants and the developed consensus statements. Conclusions The literature supports the use of various implant numbers to support full‐arch fixed prostheses. The use of intentionally tilted dental implants is indicated when appropriate conditions exist. Implant placement and loading protocols should be considered together when planning and treating patients. One‐piece zirconia dental implants can be recommended when appropriate clinical conditions exist although two‐piece zirconia implants should be used with caution as a result of insufficient data. Clinical performance of zirconia and metal ceramic single implant supported crowns is similar and each demonstrates significant, though different, complications. Zirconia ceramic FDP s are less reliable than metal ceramic. Implant supported monolithic zirconia prostheses may be a future option with more supporting evidence.