To describe the treatment of direct high flow carotid-cavernous sinus fistulas (dCCFs) with the double lumen balloon Scepter C.
7 patients with dCCFs were identified and treated with a double lumen balloon Scepter C. 5 patients had post-traumatic dCCFs and two patients had spontaneous dCCFs due to a ruptured cavernous-carotid aneurysm. The double lumen balloon was used in characterizing the angioarchitecture of the fistula in all patients. The best treatment option was then decided based on the characteristics of the carotid wall tear. Embolization of the cavernous sinus was achieved with coils and injection of Onyx liquid embolic material in three patients and with coils alone in four patients. One patient required stent assisted coiling to reconstruct the internal carotid artery.
7 patients with dCCFs were treated with transarterial embolization. All patients had immediate angiographic and clinical cure. The Scepter C balloon was used for balloon assisted coiling and injection of Onyx liquid embolic material. On follow-up, all patients had clinical symptom resolution.
The Scepter C balloon is a useful tool for the transarterial treatment of dCCFs.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 April 2015.
All research outputs
#16,050,965
of 25,388,837 outputs
Outputs from Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery
#2,080
of 2,661 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#150,298
of 277,904 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery
#18
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,388,837 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,661 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 277,904 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
