Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
5.2
3.3
Journals
JCM
Special Issues
Neurovascular Interventions: Evolving Techniques and Insights
jcm-logo
Submit to JCM Review for JCM Propose a Special Issue

Journal Menu

► Journal Menu

Journal Browser

► Journal Browser
share announcement

Neurovascular Interventions: Evolving Techniques and Insights

A Special Issue of Journal of Clinical Medicine (ISSN 2077-0383) belonging to the section "Clinical Neurology".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (20 May 2026) | Viewed by 3607

Editor

Dr. Delia Cannizzaro

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Department of Neurosurgery, ASST Ovest Milano Legnano Hospital, Legnano, 20025 Milan, Italy
Interests: neurovascular surgery; intracranial aneurysms; intracranial vascular malformation; endovascular treatment

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

We are pleased to announce a new Special Issue focusing on neurovascular interventions, highlighting the advancements in techniques, technologies, and clinical insights shaping this rapidly evolving field. As neurointerventional procedures become increasingly refined and tailored, we must explore innovative approaches to treating complex cerebrovascular conditions such as aneurysms, stroke, arteriovenous malformations, and stenosis.

This Special Issue aims to compile multidisciplinary research and reviews that present innovations in neurovascular care—ranging from novel devices and minimally invasive strategies to long-term outcomes and patient-centered practices.

The scope of this Special Issue includes, but is not limited to, the following topics:

  • Innovations in endovascular techniques;
  • Advances in imaging and navigation technologies;
  • Thrombectomy and stroke intervention updates;
  • Biomaterials and device development and application;
  • Complication management and risk mitigation;
  • AI and computational modelling in neurointervention;
  • Training, simulation, and workflow optimization.

We welcome contributions from neurosurgeons, interventional neuroradiologists, neurologists, biomedical engineers, and allied researchers. This is an opportunity to contribute to the discourse shaping the next generation of neurovascular care.

Dr. Delia Cannizzaro
Guest Editor

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 250 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for assessment.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-anonymized peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Journal of Clinical Medicine is an international peer-reviewed open access semimonthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2600 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • endovascular treatment
  • intracranial aneurysms
  • AI in neurointerventional surgery
  • intracranial vascular malformation
  • new endovascular device

Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue

  • Ease of navigation: Grouping papers by topic helps scholars navigate broad scope journals more efficiently.
  • Greater discoverability: Special Issues support the reach and impact of scientific research. Articles in Special Issues are more discoverable and cited more frequently.
  • Expansion of research network: Special Issues facilitate connections among authors, fostering scientific collaborations.
  • External promotion: Articles in Special Issues are often promoted through the journal's social media, increasing their visibility.
  • Reprint: MDPI Books provides the opportunity to republish successful Special Issues in book format, both online and in print.

Further information on MDPI's Special Issue policies can be found here.

Published Papers (3 papers)

Download All Papers
Order results
Result details
Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

Jump to: Other

11 pages, 224 KB  
Article
Comparison Between Pipeline Embolization Device and Derivo Embolization Device for the Treatment of Unruptured Cerebral Aneurysms: A Single-Center Analysis
by Weis Naziri, Stefan Daniel Gheorghe, Philipp Dietrich, Michael Kettner, Ruben Mühl-Benninghaus, Umut Yilmaz, Wolfgang Reith and Andreas Simgen
J. Clin. Med. 2026, 15(9), 3519; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm15093519 - 5 May 2026
Viewed by 658
Abstract
Background: The introduction of flow diverters (FDs) has greatly enhanced the treatment of cerebral aneurysms. This study compares two FDs, the Pipeline Embolization Device (PED) and the Derivo Embolization Device (DED), in terms of technical, angiographic and clinical aspects. Methods: A [...] Read more.
Background: The introduction of flow diverters (FDs) has greatly enhanced the treatment of cerebral aneurysms. This study compares two FDs, the Pipeline Embolization Device (PED) and the Derivo Embolization Device (DED), in terms of technical, angiographic and clinical aspects. Methods: A total of 103 patients with unruptured aneurysms were treated with the PED (n = 56) and DED (n = 47) between 2012 and 2019. Aneurysm occlusion, procedural complications, occurrence of In-stent stenosis and clinical outcome were evaluated retrospectively. Results: Implantation of the flow diverters was technically successful in all patients. There were no significant differences between baseline characteristics and aneurysm morphology. Angiographic follow-up was available with a median short-term follow-up of 3 months and a median long-term follow-up time of 16 months. Adequate aneurysm occlusion at long-term follow-up was substantially but not significantly greater with the DED (95.8%, 45/47) compared to the PED (87.5%, 49/56) (p = 0.084). In-stent stenoses were significantly less frequent with the DED (29.8%; 14/47) than with the PED (53.6%, 30/57) at short-term follow-up (p = 0.017), although moderate and asymptomatic overall. Thromboembolic or hemorrhagic events occurred in 10.7% (6/56) of cases with the PED and 8.5% (4/47) with the DED (p = 0.752). Morbidity rates were similar between devices (PED 3.6% (2/56), DED 2.1% (1/47), p = 1.0). There was no procedural mortality. Conclusions: Clinical outcomes and complications were comparable between the PED and DED while aneurysm occlusion was considerably greater at long-term follow-up and in-stent stenosis significantly less frequent at short-term follow-up with the DED. The surface-modified design of the DED may contribute to reduced thrombogenicity and early advantages in preventing in-stent stenosis. Further comparative studies are necessary to investigate these findings, particularly comparing surface-modified flow diverters with newer-generation devices featuring true coatings. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Neurovascular Interventions: Evolving Techniques and Insights)

Other

Jump to: Research

15 pages, 4163 KB  
Case Report
Case Report: Hemorrhagic–Thrombotic Escalation After Intraprocedural Rupture During Stent-Assisted Coiling: A Case-Based Narrative Review and Staged Communication Model
by Kosei Goto, Nobuo Kutsuna, Takuto Nishihara and Kotaro Makita
J. Clin. Med. 2026, 15(11), 4056; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm15114056 - 24 May 2026
Viewed by 651
Abstract
Intraprocedural rupture (IPR) during stent-assisted coiling (SAC) after stent deployment can create a narrow and rapidly changing management problem: hemorrhage control, anticoagulation reversal, acute thrombotic occlusion, and postprocedural cerebrospinal fluid diversion may all become urgent within the same clinical sequence. We report a [...] Read more.
Intraprocedural rupture (IPR) during stent-assisted coiling (SAC) after stent deployment can create a narrow and rapidly changing management problem: hemorrhage control, anticoagulation reversal, acute thrombotic occlusion, and postprocedural cerebrospinal fluid diversion may all become urgent within the same clinical sequence. We report a fatal IPR during SAC of an unruptured anterior communicating artery (AComA) aneurysm and use the case as an anchor for a targeted case-based narrative review. A 71-year-old woman underwent SAC for a 5.1-mm posteriorly directed AComA aneurysm with a bleb after treatment for vertebrobasilar ischemia. Fourth-coil insertion produced tactile resistance and contrast extravasation. Protamine reversal and temporary A1 flow control reduced the leak, but filling defects then developed from the internal carotid artery terminus to the A1 and M1 segments, requiring rescue thrombectomy. Computed tomography showed subarachnoid hemorrhage and intraventricular hemorrhage; same-day progression with hydrocephalus required bilateral external ventricular drainage. The patient died on postoperative day 7. This case highlights IPR during SAC as a time-dependent hemorrhagic–thrombotic escalation rather than a single technical event. We propose a staged assistant–operator communication model for risk mapping, rupture recognition, hemostatic-route preservation, thrombotic surveillance, and transition to computed tomography, external ventricular drainage, and intensive care. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Neurovascular Interventions: Evolving Techniques and Insights)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

16 pages, 1571 KB  
Systematic Review
Flow Diversion vs. Coiling for Large and Giant Intracranial Aneurysms: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
by Matteo Scalise, Leonardo Di Cosmo, Carlo Cossa, Nicolò Andreella, Camilla Micieli, Stefano Bendoni, Roberto Stefini and Delia Cannizzaro
J. Clin. Med. 2026, 15(4), 1357; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm15041357 - 9 Feb 2026
Cited by 2 | Viewed by 1821
Abstract
Background: The management of large (≥10 mm) and giant (≥25 mm) intracranial aneurysms remains clinically challenging due to their elevated rupture risk, morbidity, and procedural complications, which pose a dilemma for both intervention and conservative management. Flow diversion (FD) has emerged as [...] Read more.
Background: The management of large (≥10 mm) and giant (≥25 mm) intracranial aneurysms remains clinically challenging due to their elevated rupture risk, morbidity, and procedural complications, which pose a dilemma for both intervention and conservative management. Flow diversion (FD) has emerged as a promising endovascular approach, although its comparative safety and efficacy versus Coiling remain unclear. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, studies published between January 2000 and March 2025 were identified across PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science. Outcomes assessed included aneurysm recurrence, complete occlusion, favorable clinical outcomes, procedure-related complications and mortality. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated, and heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed. Results: A total of 1893 patients (1256 FD, 637 Coiling) and 1915 aneurysms across 33 studies were included. FD significantly reduced recurrence compared to Coiling (8% vs. 27%; p = 0.0001) and showed a trend toward a higher rate of complete occlusion (p = 0.0571). However, FD had a modestly increased rate of hemorrhagic complications (p = 0.0495). No other significant differences were found in clinical outcomes, major complications, ischemic events, delayed rupture, or mortality. Conclusions: Both FD and Coiling are effective and generally safe for large and giant intracranial aneurysms. FD is associated with lower recurrence and a trend toward a higher rate of complete occlusion, with similar overall safety but slightly higher hemorrhagic risk. FD is emerging as a preferred first-line option for large and giant unruptured aneurysms, while coiling remains important for ruptured aneurysms or when anatomical constraints limit the use of FD. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Neurovascular Interventions: Evolving Techniques and Insights)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
 
Displaying articles 1-3
Back to TopTop