C Papagiannaki1, L Spelle2, A-C Januel3, A Benaissa4, J-Y Gauvrit5, V Costalat6, H Desal7, F Turjman8, S Velasco9, X Barreau10, P Courtheoux11, C Cognard3, D Herbreteau1, J Moret2, L Pierot12. 1. From the Department of Neuroradiology (C.P., D.H.), Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU) Tours, Tours, France. 2. Department of Neuroradiology (L.S., J.M.), Hôpital Beaujon, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Clichy, France. 3. Department of Neuroradiology (A.-C.J., C.C.), CHU Toulouse, Toulouse, France. 4. Department of Neuroradiology (A.B., L.P.), CHU Reims, Reims, France. 5. Department of Neuroradiology (J.-Y.G.), CHU Rennes, Rennes, France. 6. Department of Neuroradiology (V.C.), CHU Montpellier, Montpellier, France. 7. Department of Neuroradiology (H.D.), CHU Nantes, Nantes, France. 8. Department of Neuroradiology (F.T.), CHU Lyon, Lyon France. 9. Department of Neuroradiology (S.V.), CHU Poitiers, Poitiers, France. 10. Department of Neuroradiology (X.B.), CHU Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France. 11. Department of Neuroradiology (P.C.), CHU Caen, Caen, France. 12. Department of Neuroradiology (A.B., L.P.), CHU Reims, Reims, France lpierot@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The safety and efficacy of WEB flow disruption have been analyzed in small, retrospective series. The object of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of WEB flow disruption in a large, multicenter, prospectively collected population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from all patients treated with the WEB-DL device between June 2011 and October 2013 in 11 French neurointerventional centers were prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed. Complications occurring during and after treatment were analyzed as well as morbidity and mortality at 1 month. Aneurysm occlusion status at the last follow-up was analyzed. RESULTS: Eighty-three patients with 85 aneurysms were included in this series. Technical success was achieved in 77 patients with 79 aneurysms (92.9%). Periprocedural complications were observed in 9 patients (10.8%), leading to permanent neurologic deficits in 3 (3.9%). Morbidity and mortality at 1 month were 1.3% and 0.0%, respectively. Angiographic follow-up was performed for 65/79 aneurysms (82.3%) 3-24 months after treatment (mean, 5.3 months). Complete aneurysm occlusion was observed in 37/65 aneurysms (56.9%); neck remnant, in 23/65 (35.4%); and aneurysm remnant, in 5/65 (7.7%). CONCLUSIONS: In this large prospective series of patients, WEB flow disruption was a safe and efficient technique.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The safety and efficacy of WEB flow disruption have been analyzed in small, retrospective series. The object of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of WEB flow disruption in a large, multicenter, prospectively collected population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from all patients treated with the WEB-DL device between June 2011 and October 2013 in 11 French neurointerventional centers were prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed. Complications occurring during and after treatment were analyzed as well as morbidity and mortality at 1 month. Aneurysm occlusion status at the last follow-up was analyzed. RESULTS: Eighty-three patients with 85 aneurysms were included in this series. Technical success was achieved in 77 patients with 79 aneurysms (92.9%). Periprocedural complications were observed in 9 patients (10.8%), leading to permanent neurologic deficits in 3 (3.9%). Morbidity and mortality at 1 month were 1.3% and 0.0%, respectively. Angiographic follow-up was performed for 65/79 aneurysms (82.3%) 3-24 months after treatment (mean, 5.3 months). Complete aneurysm occlusion was observed in 37/65 aneurysms (56.9%); neck remnant, in 23/65 (35.4%); and aneurysm remnant, in 5/65 (7.7%). CONCLUSIONS: In this large prospective series of patients, WEB flow disruption was a safe and efficient technique.
Authors: J Berge; A Biondi; P Machi; H Brunel; L Pierot; J Gabrillargues; K Kadziolka; X Barreau; V Dousset; A Bonafé Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-02-02 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: S Gallas; J Drouineau; J Gabrillargues; A Pasco; C Cognard; L Pierot; D Herbreteau Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2007-10-09 Impact factor: 3.825
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: L Pierot; J Moret; F Turjman; D Herbreteau; H Raoult; X Barreau; S Velasco; H Desal; A-C Januel; P Courtheoux; J-Y Gauvrit; C Cognard; A Molyneux; J Byrne; L Spelle Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-10-29 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: R Sivan-Hoffmann; B Gory; R Riva; P-E Labeyrie; F Signorelli; I Eldesouky; U Gonike-Sadeh; X Armoiry; F Turjman Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-08-20 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: A M J Frölich; J Spallek; L Brehmer; J-H Buhk; D Krause; J Fiehler; A Kemmling Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-08-20 Impact factor: 3.825