S B T van Rooij1, W J van Rooij2, J P Peluso3, M Sluzewski3, R S Bechan3, H G Kortman3, G N Beute4, B van der Pol4, C B Majoie5. 1. From the Department of Radiology (S.B.T.v.R.), Noordwest Ziekenhuisgroep, Alkmaar, the Netherlands. 2. Departments of Radiology (W.J.v.R., J.P.P., M.S., R.S.B., H.G.K.) wjjvanrooij@gmail.com. 3. Departments of Radiology (W.J.v.R., J.P.P., M.S., R.S.B., H.G.K.). 4. Neurosurgery (G.N.B., B.v.d.P.), Elisabeth Tweesteden Ziekenhuis, Tilburg, the Netherlands. 5. Department of Neuroradiology (C.B.M.), Academisch Medisch Centrum, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The Woven EndoBridge device was recently introduced for the intrasaccular treatment of wide-neck aneurysms without the need for adjunctive devices. We present our results of the primary treatment of ruptured aneurysms with the Woven EndoBridge regardless of location or neck size. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between February 2015 and April 2017, 100 ruptured aneurysms were selectively treated with the Woven EndoBridge. No supporting stents or balloons were used. There were 71 women treated (mean patient age, 59 years; median age, 60 years; range, 23-82 years). RESULTS: The mean aneurysm size was 5.6 mm (range, 3-13 mm), and 42 aneurysms were ≤4 mm. Sixty-six aneurysms (66%) had a wide neck, defined as ≥4 mm or a dome-neck ratio ≤1.5. There was 1 procedural rupture without sequelae. In 9 patients (9%), thromboembolic complications occurred. One poor grade patient died; neurologic deficits remained in 3. Overall treatment-related morbidity-mortality was 4% (4 of 100; 95% CI, 1.2%-10.2%).Two of 100 aneurysms were initially incompletely occluded and were additionally treated early after initial intervention. Of 80 eligible patients, 74 (93%) had 3-month angiographic follow-up. Fifty-four aneurysms (73%) were completely occluded, 17 (23%) had a small neck remnant, and 3 (4%) were incompletely occluded. One patient was additionally treated with a second Woven EndoBridge, and in 2 patients, additional treatment is scheduled. The overall reopening/retreatment rate was 6.8% (5 of 74; 95% CI, 2.6%-15.2%). There were no rebleeds during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of small ruptured aneurysms with the Woven EndoBridge was safe and effective. The Woven EndoBridge proved to be a valuable alternative to coils without the need for stents or balloons.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The Woven EndoBridge device was recently introduced for the intrasaccular treatment of wide-neck aneurysms without the need for adjunctive devices. We present our results of the primary treatment of ruptured aneurysms with the Woven EndoBridge regardless of location or neck size. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between February 2015 and April 2017, 100 ruptured aneurysms were selectively treated with the Woven EndoBridge. No supporting stents or balloons were used. There were 71 women treated (mean patient age, 59 years; median age, 60 years; range, 23-82 years). RESULTS: The mean aneurysm size was 5.6 mm (range, 3-13 mm), and 42 aneurysms were ≤4 mm. Sixty-six aneurysms (66%) had a wide neck, defined as ≥4 mm or a dome-neck ratio ≤1.5. There was 1 procedural rupture without sequelae. In 9 patients (9%), thromboembolic complications occurred. One poor grade patient died; neurologic deficits remained in 3. Overall treatment-related morbidity-mortality was 4% (4 of 100; 95% CI, 1.2%-10.2%).Two of 100 aneurysms were initially incompletely occluded and were additionally treated early after initial intervention. Of 80 eligible patients, 74 (93%) had 3-month angiographic follow-up. Fifty-four aneurysms (73%) were completely occluded, 17 (23%) had a small neck remnant, and 3 (4%) were incompletely occluded. One patient was additionally treated with a second Woven EndoBridge, and in 2 patients, additional treatment is scheduled. The overall reopening/retreatment rate was 6.8% (5 of 74; 95% CI, 2.6%-15.2%). There were no rebleeds during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of small ruptured aneurysms with the Woven EndoBridge was safe and effective. The Woven EndoBridge proved to be a valuable alternative to coils without the need for stents or balloons.
Authors: F Cagnazzo; R Ahmed; C Dargazanli; P-H Lefevre; G Gascou; I Derraz; S A Kalmanovich; C Riquelme; A Bonafe; V Costalat Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-04-11 Impact factor: 3.825
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: 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: Thomas C Booth; Carmen Parra-Farinas; Ruth-Mary deSouza; Naga Kandasamy; Jo Bhattacharya; Prem Rangi; Jonathan Downer Journal: World Neurosurg Date: 2020-03-13 Impact factor: 2.104
Authors: Sbt van Rooij; J P Peluso; M Sluzewski; H G Kortman; I Boukrab; W J van Rooij Journal: Interv Neuroradiol Date: 2018-07-12 Impact factor: 1.610
Authors: Benjamin Mine; Thomas Bonnet; Juan Carlos Vazquez-Suarez; Noémie Ligot; Boris Lubicz Journal: Interv Neuroradiol Date: 2019-12-10 Impact factor: 1.610