Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Flow diverters (FD) have become a revolutionary approach in the endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms (IAs), supplanting traditional methods (1). Despite their demonstrated efficacy and safety, unforeseeable device‐related technical complications, such as fish‐mouthing, device braid narrowing, deformation, ovalization, and collapsing have been reported during implantation and follow‐up (2,3,4). However, the definitions and reporting of these complications remain inconsistent. We conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis to assess overall device‐related technical complication rates associated with flow diversion and provide an overview of the current reported definitions. METHODS: We searched six databases up to April 4th, 2023, and included studies that reported device‐related technical complications related to FD treatment for IAs. We considered five main outcome measures as device‐related technical complications: (1) fish‐mouthing, (2) device braid collapsing, (3) device braid narrowing, (4) device braid deformation, and (5) device braid ovalization. The data from these studies were pooled using a random‐effects model. RESULTS: We included 48 studies involving 3,572 patients and 3,939 aneurysms. Among them, 14 studies (39%) provided definitions for fish‐mouthing. However, none of the included studies offered specific definitions for device braid collapsing, narrowing, or deformation, despite reporting rates for these complications in five, six, and three studies, respectively. The pooled rates for device‐related technical complications were as follows: 3% (95% CI 2 – 4%; I2 = 27%) for fish‐mouthing, 1% (95% CI 0 – 3%; I2 = 0%) for collapsing, 7% (95% CI 2 – 20%; I2 = 85%) for narrowing, and 1% (95% CI 1 – 4%; I2 = 0%) for deformation. Device braid ovalization data were not available. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study suggest that FD treatment for IAs generally exhibits low rates of fish‐mouthing, device braid narrowing, collapsing, and deformation. However, the lack of standardized definitions hinders the ability to objectively compare device outcomes, emphasizing the need for uniform device‐related complication definitions in future prospective studies on FD.