Scoping review reveals presentation and anatomical characteristics of cortical middle cerebral artery aneurysms, highlighting treatment outcomes.
Background: Cortical middle cerebral artery (cMCA) aneurysms represent a nonnegligible proportion of all intracranial aneurysms. While studies on proximal MCA aneurysms are growing, large data on cMCA aneurysms are still lacking. Methods: PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Embase were searched according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to identify studies that described cMCA. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed according to preestablished guidelines. Results: Of the 7306 studies screened, 50 were included, yielding 58 patients harboring cMCA aneurysms. The mean age was 33 years old, and females accounted for 48.3% of patients. Distribution of aneurysms among cMCA branches was as follows: angular (17.2%, n = 10), central and posterior parietal (12.1%, n = 7), prefrontal (8.62%, n = 5), posterior temporal (6.9%, n = 4), precentral (5.1%, n = 3), postcentral (3.45%, n = 2), and temporooccipital and anterior temporal (1.7%, n = 1). No aneurysms were reported from the orbitofrontal, temporopolar, or middle temporal branches. In 18 cases (31%), the aneurysm location could not be precisely identified and was categorized as unspecified. Most of cMCA aneurysms were solitary (87.9%, n = 51), saccular in shape (67.2%, n = 39), idiopathic in nature (50%, n = 29), small in size (50%, n = 16/32), left-sided (52.1%, n = 25/48), and presented in a ruptured state (75.4%, V43/57). Headache was the most common presenting symptom (67.2%). Surgical treatment was the preferred option (72.4%, n = 42/58), and most cases achieved favorable clinical outcomes on long-term follow-up (88.9%, n = 48/54). Conclusion: This review provides valuable insights into cMCA aneurysms by providing detailed branch-specific frequency data with an emphasis on anatomical, clinical, and treatment characteristics.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shahrabani et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: