D Behme1, A Berlis2, W Weber3. 1. From the Department of Neuroradiology (D.B.), Georg-August-University Göttingen, University Medical Center, Göttingen, Germany daniel.behme@med.uni-goettingen.de. 2. Department of Neuroradiology (A.B.), Klinikum Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany. 3. Departments of Radiology and Neuroradiology (W.W.), Ruhr-University-Bochum, University Medical Center, Bochum Langendreer, Departments of Radiology and Neuroradiology, Bochum, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The safety and efficacy of the Woven EndoBridge (WEB) device for the treatment of cerebral aneurysms have been investigated in several studies. Most of these studies focused on specific aneurysms or a certain WEB device. Our objective was to report the experience of 2 German centers with the WEB device, including technical feasibility, safety, and short-term angiographic outcome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of all ruptured and unruptured aneurysms that were treated with a WEB device (WEB Double-Layer, Single-Layer, and Single-Layer Sphere) between April 2012 and August 2014. Primary outcome measures included the feasibility of the implantation and the angiographic outcome at 3-month follow-up. Secondary outcome measures included the clinical outcome at discharge and procedural complications. RESULTS: Fifty-five aneurysms in 52 patients, including 14 ruptured aneurysms, underwent treatment with the WEB device. The median age of patients was 55 years (range, 30-75 years); 19/55 (37%) were men. The device could be deployed in all patients and was implanted in 51/55 (93%) cases. Procedural complications occurred in 6/51 (12%), comprising 2 thromboembolic events, 2 thrombus formations, 1 high-grade posterior cerebral artery stenosis, and 1 aneurysm rupture. None of these had clinical sequelae. Angiographic follow-up at 3 months was available for 44/51 (86%) aneurysms. A favorable angiographic result at 3 months was achieved in 29/44 (66%) cases, whereas the percentage of good anatomic results increased from 40% in 2012 to 75% in 2014. CONCLUSIONS: The WEB device proved to be safe. Acceptable occlusion rates can be achieved but seem to require wide experience with the device.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The safety and efficacy of the Woven EndoBridge (WEB) device for the treatment of cerebral aneurysms have been investigated in several studies. Most of these studies focused on specific aneurysms or a certain WEB device. Our objective was to report the experience of 2 German centers with the WEB device, including technical feasibility, safety, and short-term angiographic outcome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of all ruptured and unruptured aneurysms that were treated with a WEB device (WEB Double-Layer, Single-Layer, and Single-Layer Sphere) between April 2012 and August 2014. Primary outcome measures included the feasibility of the implantation and the angiographic outcome at 3-month follow-up. Secondary outcome measures included the clinical outcome at discharge and procedural complications. RESULTS: Fifty-five aneurysms in 52 patients, including 14 ruptured aneurysms, underwent treatment with the WEB device. The median age of patients was 55 years (range, 30-75 years); 19/55 (37%) were men. The device could be deployed in all patients and was implanted in 51/55 (93%) cases. Procedural complications occurred in 6/51 (12%), comprising 2 thromboembolic events, 2 thrombus formations, 1 high-grade posterior cerebral artery stenosis, and 1 aneurysm rupture. None of these had clinical sequelae. Angiographic follow-up at 3 months was available for 44/51 (86%) aneurysms. A favorable angiographic result at 3 months was achieved in 29/44 (66%) cases, whereas the percentage of good anatomic results increased from 40% in 2012 to 75% in 2014. CONCLUSIONS: The WEB device proved to be safe. Acceptable occlusion rates can be achieved but seem to require wide experience with the device.
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: Andrew Molyneux; Richard Kerr; Irene Stratton; Peter Sandercock; Mike Clarke; Julia Shrimpton; Rury Holman Journal: Lancet Date: 2002-10-26 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: L Pierot; T Liebig; V Sychra; K Kadziolka; F Dorn; C Strasilla; C Kabbasch; J Klisch Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-06-07 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Alessandra Biondi; Vallabh Janardhan; Jeffrey M Katz; Kimberly Salvaggio; Howard A Riina; Y Pierre Gobin Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Fernando Mut; Bong Jae Chung; Jorge Chudyk; Pedro Lylyk; Ramanathan Kadirvel; David F Kallmes; Juan R Cebral Journal: Int J Numer Method Biomed Eng Date: 2019-04-11 Impact factor: 2.747
Authors: Sbt van Rooij; M E Sprengers; J P Peluso; J Daams; D Verbaan; W J van Rooij; C B Majoie Journal: Interv Neuroradiol Date: 2020-02-06 Impact factor: 1.610
Authors: R S Bechan; M E Sprengers; C B Majoie; J P Peluso; M Sluzewski; W J van Rooij Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-09-24 Impact factor: 3.825