Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Original research
Ultrasound for the evaluation of stenosis after flow diversion
  1. Cameron M McDougall1,2,
  2. Khurshid Khan3,
  3. Maher Saqqur3,
  4. Andrew Jack1,
  5. Jeremy Rempel4,
  6. Carol Derksen3,
  7. Yin Xi2,
  8. Michael Chow1
  1. 1Division of Neurosurgery, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
  2. 2Department of Radiology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas, USA
  3. 3Department of Neurology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
  4. 4Department of Radiology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
  1. Correspondence to Dr Cameron M McDougall, Division of Neurosurgery, University of Alberta Hospital, 8440 112th Street NW, Edmonton, Canada; cameron.mcdougall{at}


Background and purpose Flow diversion is a relatively new strategy used to treat complex cerebral aneurysms. The optimal method for radiographic follow-up of patients treated with flow diverters has not been established. The rate and clinical implications of in-stent stenosis for these devices is unclear. We evaluate the use of transcranial Doppler ultrasound (TCD) for follow-up of in-stent stenosis.

Materials and methods We analyzed 28 patients treated with the Pipeline embolization device (PED) over the course of 42 months from January 2009 to June 2012. Standard conventional cerebral angiograms were performed in all patients. TCD studies were available in 23 patients.

Results Angiographic and TCD results were compared and found to correlate well.

Conclusions TCD is a potentially useful adjunct for evaluating in-stent stenosis after flow diversion.

  • Aneurysm
  • Blood Flow
  • Flow Diverter
  • Stenosis
  • Ultrasound

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


  • Contributors All authors contributed to the conception, design, creation and revision of this manuscript.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Ethics approval Ethics approval was obtained from the University of Alberta Institutional Review Board.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.