BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: During the past several years, the number of unruptured aneurysms treated with endovascular techniques has increased. Traditionally, coil embolization was the treatment of choice for these lesions; however, recently flow diversion has become a viable, and in some cases superior, treatment option. The current single-center study presents results and trends of endovascular treatment with flow diversion and coil embolization in an unselected group of patients with unruptured intracranial aneurysms in a “real world“ setting during the flow-diverter era. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three hundred ten patients with 318 treated unruptured aneurysms from June 2009 to May 2015 were included. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, aneurysm/treatment characteristics, and outcomes were collected prospectively. We studied the following: intensive care unit admission/reasons, perioperative and mid-/long-term complications, target aneurysm rupture, retreatment/recurrence rates, and long-term neurologic outcome using the mRS. RESULTS: The flow-diverter group had a larger mean aneurysm size (12.3 ± 8.6 mm versus 8.7 ± 6.3 mm, P < .0001). There were no significant differences in the immediate (P = .43) and mid-/long-term complication rates (P = .54) between groups. Periprocedural neurologic morbidity and mortality rates were 2.1% and 0.5% in the coiling group and 2.5% and 1.6% in the flow-diverter group. Patients with coiling were more likely to be retreated than those with flow diversion (14.8% versus 5.7%, P = .009). Worsening of the mRS due to the target aneurysm was noted in only 3.2% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: The endovascular treatment of unruptured aneurysms can be performed with very low rates of neurologic complications. Both flow-diverter and coil therapy were safe and effective.

Background: Patients with intervertebral disc herniation undergo surgical removal of herniated disc material in cases of persisting symptoms and/or neurologic deficits. While motor deficits often prompt surgery, little is known about the optimal timing of surgery in these cases. The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate the impact of timing of disc surgery on motor recovery. Does postponing surgical treatment worsen outcome? Method: In total, 120 patients with sciatica and/or sensorimotor deficits due to a lumbar disc herniation were surgically treated at the authors’ center within a 3-month period. In 60 patients, motor deficits were present at the time of admission. Motor function was assessed using manual muscle testing and subdivided according to the Medical Research Council (MRC) scale. Patient demographics, neurologic deficits, duration of motor deficits, treatment characteristics, and outcome were assessed. At a minimum follow-up of 1 year, functional recovery and complications were collated. Patients were subdivided into groups according to the severity of the paresis (MRC ≤ 3/5 vs. MRC 4/5). Intra-group differences were compared based on the duration of the neurologic deficits. Results: Patients with moderate and severe paresis (MRC ≤ 3/5) benefit from treatment within 72 h as they were shown to have a significantly higher complete recovery rate at 1-year follow-up (75% vs. 0%; p < 0.001). Conclusion: Immediate surgery should be offered to patients with moderate and severe motor deficits to increase the likelihood of neurologic recovery. This prospective data may have an impact on emergency triage in these patients.