J Popielski1, A Berlis2, W Weber1, S Fischer3. 1. From the Institut für Diagnostische und Interventionelle Radiologie, Neuroradiologie, Nuklearmedizin (J.P., W.W., S.F.), Knappschaftskrankenhaus Bochum-Langendreer, Universitätsklinik, Bochum, Germany. 2. Klinik für Diagnostische Radiologie und Neuroradiologie (A.B.), Klinikum Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany. 3. From the Institut für Diagnostische und Interventionelle Radiologie, Neuroradiologie, Nuklearmedizin (J.P., W.W., S.F.), Knappschaftskrankenhaus Bochum-Langendreer, Universitätsklinik, Bochum, Germany sebif101@googlemail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The safety and efficacy of the Woven EndoBridge (WEB) device for the treatment of cerebral aneurysms has been investigated in several studies. Our objective was to report the experience of 2 neurovascular centers with the WEB device in the treatment of broad-based intracranial aneurysms, including the technical feasibility and safety as well as short- and midterm angiographic and clinical follow-up-results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of all ruptured and unruptured aneurysms treated with a WEB device (WEB Single-Layer and Single-Layer Sphere) between August 2014 and February 2017. Primary outcome measures included the feasibility of implantation and the angiographic outcome. Secondary outcome measures included the clinical outcome at discharge and procedural complications. RESULTS: One hundred two aneurysms in 101 patients, including 37 (36.3%) ruptured aneurysms, were treated with the WEB device. Implantation was successful in 98 (96.1%) aneurysms. Additional devices (stents/coils) were necessary in 15.3% (15/98) of aneurysms. Procedural complications occurred in 4.9% (5/102). Of these, 4 were thromboembolic events and 1 was an intraprocedural rupture. Angiographic follow-up at 3 and 12 months was available for 79.6% (78/98) and 50.0% (49/98) of all aneurysms to date, respectively, showing a sufficient aneurysm occlusion in 80.7% (63/78) at 3 months and 77.6% (38/49) at 12 months. Delayed aneurysm ruptures have not been observed during the follow-up period to date. CONCLUSIONS: The WEB device offers a safe and effective treatment option for broad-based intracranial aneurysms without the need for dual antiplatelet therapy.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The safety and efficacy of the Woven EndoBridge (WEB) device for the treatment of cerebral aneurysms has been investigated in several studies. Our objective was to report the experience of 2 neurovascular centers with the WEB device in the treatment of broad-based intracranial aneurysms, including the technical feasibility and safety as well as short- and midterm angiographic and clinical follow-up-results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of all ruptured and unruptured aneurysms treated with a WEB device (WEB Single-Layer and Single-Layer Sphere) between August 2014 and February 2017. Primary outcome measures included the feasibility of implantation and the angiographic outcome. Secondary outcome measures included the clinical outcome at discharge and procedural complications. RESULTS: One hundred two aneurysms in 101 patients, including 37 (36.3%) ruptured aneurysms, were treated with the WEB device. Implantation was successful in 98 (96.1%) aneurysms. Additional devices (stents/coils) were necessary in 15.3% (15/98) of aneurysms. Procedural complications occurred in 4.9% (5/102). Of these, 4 were thromboembolic events and 1 was an intraprocedural rupture. Angiographic follow-up at 3 and 12 months was available for 79.6% (78/98) and 50.0% (49/98) of all aneurysms to date, respectively, showing a sufficient aneurysm occlusion in 80.7% (63/78) at 3 months and 77.6% (38/49) at 12 months. Delayed aneurysm ruptures have not been observed during the follow-up period to date. CONCLUSIONS: The WEB device offers a safe and effective treatment option for broad-based intracranial aneurysms without the need for dual antiplatelet therapy.
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: 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: 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