BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms with unfavorable anatomy (large aneurysms, wide-neck) is frequently challenging and is also associated with a high incidence of significant recurrences. The WEB, an intrasaccular flow disrupter, was designed for use in this type of aneurysm. We report our early experience with this device in this multicenter study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty patients with 21 aneurysms were treated by using the WEB in 3 European centers. The ability to successfully deploy the WEB, immediate posttreatment angiographic results, adverse events, clinical outcome, and angiographic follow-up results were recorded. RESULTS: Aneurysm location was the ICA (4/21, 19.1%), MCA (8/21, 38.1%), AcomA (5/21, 23.8%), and BA (4/21, 19.1%). No treatment failures were reported. Treatment was performed exclusively with the WEB in 16/21 (76.2%) patients. Additional treatment (coiling and/or stent placement) was used in 5/21 (23.8%) patients. One patient (4.8%) experienced transient clinical worsening (mRS 1 at 1 month, mRS 0 at 3 months) related to a thromboembolic event. Inadvertent detachment of the WEB was observed, and the WEB was retrieved in 1 patient, without adverse effects. In the short-term follow-up (2-8 months), adequate occlusion (total occlusion or neck remnant) was observed in 80.0% of aneurysms. CONCLUSIONS: Intrasaccular flow disruption is a new endovascular approach for aneurysm treatment. In our preliminary experience, this treatment was feasible and mostly used in bifurcation aneurysms (MCA, BA, ICA) with unfavorable anatomy. Further studies are needed to precisely evaluate the indications, safety, and efficacy of this new technique.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms with unfavorable anatomy (large aneurysms, wide-neck) is frequently challenging and is also associated with a high incidence of significant recurrences. The WEB, an intrasaccular flow disrupter, was designed for use in this type of aneurysm. We report our early experience with this device in this multicenter study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty patients with 21 aneurysms were treated by using the WEB in 3 European centers. The ability to successfully deploy the WEB, immediate posttreatment angiographic results, adverse events, clinical outcome, and angiographic follow-up results were recorded. RESULTS:Aneurysm location was the ICA (4/21, 19.1%), MCA (8/21, 38.1%), AcomA (5/21, 23.8%), and BA (4/21, 19.1%). No treatment failures were reported. Treatment was performed exclusively with the WEB in 16/21 (76.2%) patients. Additional treatment (coiling and/or stent placement) was used in 5/21 (23.8%) patients. One patient (4.8%) experienced transient clinical worsening (mRS 1 at 1 month, mRS 0 at 3 months) related to a thromboembolic event. Inadvertent detachment of the WEB was observed, and the WEB was retrieved in 1 patient, without adverse effects. In the short-term follow-up (2-8 months), adequate occlusion (total occlusion or neck remnant) was observed in 80.0% of aneurysms. CONCLUSIONS: Intrasaccular flow disruption is a new endovascular approach for aneurysm treatment. In our preliminary experience, this treatment was feasible and mostly used in bifurcation aneurysms (MCA, BA, ICA) with unfavorable anatomy. Further studies are needed to precisely evaluate the indications, safety, and efficacy of this new technique.
Authors: Joachim Klisch; Vojtech Sychra; Christoph Strasilla; Thomas Liebig; David Fiorella Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2011-05-27 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: J Mocco; Kenneth V Snyder; Felipe C Albuquerque; Bernard R Bendok; Boulos Alan S; Jeffrey S Carpenter; David J Fiorella; Brian L Hoh; Jay U Howington; Brian T Jankowitz; Kenneth M Liebman; Ansaar T Rai; Rafael Rodriguez-Mercado; Adnan H Siddiqui; Erol Veznedaroglu; L Nelson Hopkins; Elad I Levy Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Pablo Harker; Robert W Regenhardt; Naif M Alotaibi; Justin Vranic; Faith C Robertson; Adam A Dmytriw; Jerry C Ku; Matthew Koch; Christopher J Stapleton; Thabele M Leslie-Mazwi; Nelson Serna; Boris Pabon; Juan A Mejia; Aman B Patel Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2021-05-25 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: C Ulfert; J Pfaff; S Schönenberger; J Bösel; C Herweh; M Pham; M Bendszus; M Möhlenbruch Journal: Clin Neuroradiol Date: 2016-09-16 Impact factor: 3.649
Authors: J Caroff; C Mihalea; J Klisch; C Strasilla; A Berlis; T Patankar; W Weber; D Behme; E A Jacobsen; T Liebig; S Prothmann; C Cognard; T Finkenzeller; J Moret; L Spelle Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-07-09 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: B Lubicz; J Klisch; J-Y Gauvrit; I Szikora; M Leonardi; T Liebig; N P Nuzzi; E Boccardi; F D Paola; M Holtmannspötter; W Weber; E Calgliari; V Sychra; B Mine; L Pierot Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2014-01-23 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: J Caroff; C Mihalea; H Neki; D Ruijters; L Ikka; N Benachour; J Moret; L Spelle Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2014-02-13 Impact factor: 3.825