Clinical efficacy, safety, and prognostic assessment of neurointerventional surgery versus craniotomy in patients with cerebral aneurysms

<subsection>Aim:</subsection>To analyze the differences in clinical efficacy and safety between neurointerventional surgery and craniotomy in the treatment of patients with cerebral aneurysms and investigate their impact on patient prognosis.<part /><subsection>Material and Methods:</subsection>In this retrospective analysis, 98 patients who were diagnosed with cerebral aneurysms and underwent surgical treatment from September 2020 to October 2023 were selected as the subjects of the study. They were categorized into two groups based on the difference in surgical procedures: the intervention group (n=50, IG) and the craniotomy group (n=48, CG).<part /><subsection>Results:</subsection>The IG showed shorter length of stay, lower intraoperative bleeding, and longer operative time than the CG (P < 0.05). At 3 days postoperatively, the IG exhibited lower middle cerebral artery blood flow velocity and higher rSO2 levels than the CG (P < 0.05). At 6 months postoperatively, the proportion of Hunt-Hess grade I in the IG was 32.00% (16/50), which was higher than that in the CG (14.58%, 7/48) (&#967;² = 4.136, P = 0.042). At 6 months postoperatively, the incidence of complications in the IG was lower than in the CG (&#967;² = 11.707, P = 0.001). At 6 months postoperatively, the IG demonstrated higher scores in activities of daily living and communication abilities, and showed lower HAMA and HAMD scores compared to the CG (P < 0.05).<part /><subsection>Conclusion:</subsection>In contrast to traditional craniotomy clipping, neurointerventional surgery typically requires a longer duration for treating cerebral aneurysms, but it contributes to mitigating patient trauma, reducing the incidence of complications.

Neurointervention Cerebral aneurysms Craniotomy clipping Clinical efficacy Cerebral vasospasm