Ivo S Muskens1, Joeky T Senders1, Hormuzdiyar H Dasenbrock2, Timothy R S Smith2, Marike L D Broekman3. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands; Cushing Neurosurgery Outcomes Center, Department of Neurosurgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 2. Cushing Neurosurgery Outcomes Center, Department of Neurosurgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 3. Department of Neurosurgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands; Cushing Neurosurgery Outcomes Center, Department of Neurosurgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. Electronic address: M.L.D.Broekman-4@umcutrecht.nl.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The Woven Endobridge (WEB) device is an innovative endovascular device for treatment of intracranial aneurysms, especially bifurcation and wide-neck aneurysms. Although not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, it has been available in Europe since 2011. The aim of this review is to evaluate the outcomes of WEB device use for intracranial aneurysm treatment. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted with MEDLINE search engines PubMed and Embase from 2011. The search strategy provided 6229 articles, and 19 articles were included. RESULTS: A total of 19 papers were identified describing the use of WEB devices in 687 patients with 718 aneurysms. The 2 largest prospective multicenter studies (WEBCAST and the French Observatory Trial) reported successful treatment, defined as complete closure or a neck remnant, in 85% and 79% of aneurysms, respectively. The use of a WEB device in combination with coiling or stenting was described with varying results in multiple small series. Outcomes of WEB device use in ruptured aneurysms in 2 studies showed 94% and 80% adequate treatment. Thromboembolic events were described in 71 patients (10.3% of all patients) and infarctions in 8 patients (1.2% of all patients). CONCLUSIONS: Despite initial promising results, the WEB device should be used with caution given its potentially large learning curve and because it has primarily been investigated only in wide-neck and bifurcation aneurysms. In addition, currently available prospective studies have short follow-up, and the device has not been directly compared with other treatment modalities.
INTRODUCTION: The Woven Endobridge (WEB) device is an innovative endovascular device for treatment of intracranial aneurysms, especially bifurcation and wide-neck aneurysms. Although not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, it has been available in Europe since 2011. The aim of this review is to evaluate the outcomes of WEB device use for intracranial aneurysm treatment. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted with MEDLINE search engines PubMed and Embase from 2011. The search strategy provided 6229 articles, and 19 articles were included. RESULTS: A total of 19 papers were identified describing the use of WEB devices in 687 patients with 718 aneurysms. The 2 largest prospective multicenter studies (WEBCAST and the French Observatory Trial) reported successful treatment, defined as complete closure or a neck remnant, in 85% and 79% of aneurysms, respectively. The use of a WEB device in combination with coiling or stenting was described with varying results in multiple small series. Outcomes of WEB device use in ruptured aneurysms in 2 studies showed 94% and 80% adequate treatment. Thromboembolic events were described in 71 patients (10.3% of all patients) and infarctions in 8 patients (1.2% of all patients). CONCLUSIONS: Despite initial promising results, the WEB device should be used with caution given its potentially large learning curve and because it has primarily been investigated only in wide-neck and bifurcation aneurysms. In addition, currently available prospective studies have short follow-up, and the device has not been directly compared with other treatment modalities.
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: Jean Raymond; Anne-Christine Januel; Daniela Iancu; Daniel Roy; Alain Weill; Andrew Carlson; Tim E Darsaut Journal: Interv Neuroradiol Date: 2019-11-05 Impact factor: 1.610
Authors: L Goertz; T Liebig; E Siebert; M Herzberg; L Pennig; M Schlamann; J Borggrefe; B Krischek; F Dorn; C Kabbasch Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-09-05 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: L Pierot; I Gubucz; J H Buhk; M Holtmannspötter; D Herbreteau; L Stockx; L Spelle; J Berkefeld; A-C Januel; A Molyneux; J V Byrne; J Fiehler; I Szikora; X Barreau Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2017-04-27 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: David C Lauzier; Brandon K Root; Yasha Kayan; Josser E Delgado Almandoz; Joshua W Osbun; Arindam R Chatterjee; Kayla L Whaley; Megan E Tipps; Christopher J Moran; Akash P Kansagra Journal: Interv Neuroradiol Date: 2021-05-05 Impact factor: 1.610
Authors: Nitin Goyal; Daniel Hoit; Julie DiNitto; Lucas Elijovich; David Fiorella; Laurent Pierot; Saleh Lamin; Laurent Spelle; Isil Saatci; Saru Cekirge; Adam S Arthur Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2020-01-31 Impact factor: 5.836
Authors: Helen C U Ota; Brandon G Smith; Alexander Alamri; Faith C Robertson; Hani Marcus; Allison Hirst; Marike Broekman; Peter Hutchinson; Peter McCulloch; Angelos Kolias Journal: Acta Neurochir (Wien) Date: 2020-07-10 Impact factor: 2.216