الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 142 |  |  |
| | | from | 142 | | |
Abstract
Regarding follow up assessment in clinical outcome, significant
improvement occurred in both groups with minimal or no symptoms in 15
out of 17 (88.23%) in the balloon group and 14 out of 15 (93%) in the flow
diverter group. Findings show that total obliteration was achieved
immediately in most of cases (11 out of 17 in the balloon group, 13 out of 15
in the Flow diverter group). No significant difference between angiographic
outcome of immediate and follow up imaging in the case of flow diverter.
This can be explained by good results in immediate evaluation. There is a
significant difference between the immediate and follow up score of the
balloon group but eventually most of the cases achieve complete obliteration
(15 out of 17).
Regarding complications, the operation went uneventful for more than 2
thirds of cases in each group. Although thrombotic complication is higher in
Flow diverter group (20% for FD Vs 11.8% for B), manifest infarction is
paradoxically higher in Balloon group (6.7% for FD Vs 17.6% for B).
hemorrhagic event occurred only once in balloon group (5.9%).
For correlation, clinical outcome correlates with radiological outcome
(P=0.007 significant level is P<0.001)
Cost effectiveness
Question is about the cost effectiveness of every technique is very
important. Basically the cost of flow diverter stent is higher in the Egyptian
market. But the total cost is about many aspects, for example, the duration of
stay at critical care units, management of complications, rehabilitation and
disability burden. A study published this year compared the cost of
endovascular techniques and even surgical clipping. In conclusion Flow
diversion was the least in cost because of better results and lesser
consumption of facility resources. It must be mentioned that there is many
factors determine the total cost other than the technique used such as
aneurysm location, rupture status and preoperative condition (Twitchell et
al., 2018).
Conclusion: If we eliminate the confounding factors by strict inclusion and exclusion
criteria, the results of the balloon assisted coiling and flow diverter stent are
comparable with statistically insignificant superiority to the flow diverter
group. No rebleeding, rupture or recurrence were noted in both techniques.
Both techniques have advantages and disadvantages.