| Literature DB >> 35037115 |
Lukas Goertz1, Thomas Liebig2, Eberhard Siebert3, Muriel Pflaeging4, Robert Forbrig2, Lenhard Pennig5, Erkan Celik5, Nuran Abdullayev5, Marc Schlamann5, Franziska Dorn6, Christoph Kabbasch5.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Woven Endobridge (WEB) embolization has become a well-established endovascular treatment option for wide-necked bifurcation aneurysms. The objective was to analyse cases that required additional stent-implantation.Entities:
Keywords: Endovascular; Intracranial aneurysm; Morbidity; Woven Endobridge
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35037115 PMCID: PMC9337996 DOI: 10.1007/s00701-022-05115-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Acta Neurochir (Wien) ISSN: 0001-6268 Impact factor: 2.816
Baseline patient and aneurysm characteristics
| WEB only | WEB + stent ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Patient age (years) | 58.0 ± 12.3 | 61.8 ± 7.4 | 0.246 |
| Female sex | 114 (69.9%) | 12 (80.0%) | 0.558 |
| Ruptured aneurysm status | 51 (31.3%) | 3 (20.0%) | 0.558 |
| Aneurysm location | |||
| Acom | 43 (26.4%) | 4 (26.7%) | 1.0 |
| MCA | 26 (16.0%) | 2 (13.3%) | 1.0 |
| ICA | 3 (1.8%) | ||
| Paraophthalmic | 11 (6.7%) | 2 (13.3%) | 0.301 |
| Pcom | 13 (8.0%) | 1 (6.7%) | 1.0 |
| Terminus | 4 (2.5%) | 0 (0%) | 1.0 |
| Posterior circulation | 63 (38.7%) | 6 (40.0%) | 0.918 |
| Bifurcation location | 133 (81.6%) | 10 (66.7%) | 0.164 |
| Aneurysm size | |||
| Maximum diameter (mm) | 7.0 ± 2.3 | 7.0 ± 3.3 | 0.978 |
| Aneurysm width (mm) | 6.0 ± 2.0 | 6.6 ± 3.2 | 0.531 |
| Aneurysm height (mm) | 6.4 ± 2.5 | 5.9 ± 0.8 | 0.472 |
| Neck width (mm) | 4.2 ± 1.5 | 5.1 ± 2.6 | 0.211 |
| Dome-to-neck ratio | 1.5 ± 0.5 | 1.3 ± 0.5 | 0.216 |
| Aspect ratio | 1.6 ± 0.8 | 1.2 ± 0.4 | 0.059 |
| Wide neck | 148 (90.8%) | 15 (100%) | 0.619 |
| Lobulated morphology | 13 (8.0%) | 1 (6.7%) | 1.0 |
| Recurrent aneurysm | 7 (4.3%) | 2 (13.3%) | 0.169 |
WEB, Woven Endobridge; Acom, anterior communicating artery; MCA, middle cerebral artery; ICA, internal carotid artery; Pcom, posterior communicating artery
Procedural specifics
| WEB only ( | WEB + stent ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| WEB type | |||
| DL | 10 (6.1%) | 1 (6.7%) | 1.0 |
| SL | 124 (76.1%) | 9 (60.0%) | 0.170 |
| SLS | 29 (17.8%) | 5 (33.3%) | 0.168 |
| WEB 17 | 72 (44.2%) | 3 (20.0%) | 0.100 |
| Additional coiling | 4 (2.5%) | 2 (16.7%) | 0.082 |
WEB, Woven Endobridge; DL, dual-layer; SL, single-layer; SLS, single-layer sphere
Procedure-related technical/asymptomatic and symptomatic complications
| WEB only ( | WEB + stent ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall complications | 16 (9.8%) | 6 (40.0%) | 0.001 |
| Symptomatic complications | 5 (3.1%) | 1 (6.7%) | 0.415 |
| Thromboembolic complications | 13 (8.0%) | 5 (33.3%) | 0.002 |
| Technical/asymptomatic | 10 (6.1%) | 5 (33.3%) | |
| Symptomatic | 3 (1.8%) | 0 (0%) | |
| Haemorrhagic complications | 3 (1.8%) | 0 (0%) | 1.0 |
| Technical/asymptomatic | 1 (0.6%) | 0 (0%) | |
| Symptomatic | 2 (1.2%) | 0 (0%) | |
| Neurological complications | 5 (3.1%) | 1 (6.7%) | 0.415 |
| Ischemic stroke | 3 (1.8%) | 0 (0%) | 1.0 |
| Brain oedema | 0 | 1 (6.7%) | 0.084 |
Angiographic results
| Immediate aneurysm occlusion | 6-month angiographic follow-up | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WEB only ( | WEB + stent ( | WEB only ( | WEB + stent ( | |
| Complete occlusion (RROC 1) | 78 (47.9%) | 9 (60.0%) | 91 (73.4%) | 10 (66.7%) |
| Neck remnant (RROC 2) | 28 (17.2%) | 3 (20.0%) | 24 (19.4%) | 3 (20.0%) |
| Aneurysm remnant (RROC 3) | 57 (35.0%) | 3 (20.0%) | 9 (7.3%) | 2 (13.3%) |
| Adequate occlusion | 106 (65.0%) | 12 (80.0%) | 115 (92.7%) | 13 (86.7%) |
RROC, Raymond-Roy occlusion classification
Fig. 1Digital subtraction angiography (a–b) with three-dimensional reconstructions of rotational angiography (c–d) shows an unruptured, wide-necked aneurysm at the basilar tip (10 × 6 mm). The neck width (10 mm) equals the aneurysm width, resulting in a dome-to-neck ratio of 1. The aneurysm is tilted anteriorly and incorporates both PCA trunks in its base. Due to its broad base, aneurysm embolization with stent-assisted coiling was planned. At first, a Neuroform Atlas microstent (4.5 × 30 mm) was implanted from the right P1 to the basilar artery (e–f). Subsequent coil deployment within the aneurysm failed, as already the first coil could not be secured in the aneurysm sac and protruded into the parent vessel, as the broad base was not fully covered by the single stent (g). Hence, implantation of a second stent in Y-configuration was attempted. However, probing of the left P1 through the struts of the first stent failed, although trying various microwire-microcatheter combinations (h). Given that the single stent covered the broad base only partially, we supposed that a WEB could be placed better within the aneurysm than the coils due to its balloon-like shape. In a staged procedure, a WEB SL 11 × 6 mm should be deployed based on the aneurysm dimensions. After successful probing of the aneurysm sac through the stent struts with the VIA 0.033-inch microcatheter (i), the WEB could be correctly deployed within the aneurysm sac (j). The previously implanted stent shouldered the WEB at its bottom and supported correct WEB position (k–m). Immediate angiographic control showed contrast stasis within the aneurysm and patency of the left P1 (n, arrow). Three-month follow-up showed progressive aneurysm occlusion of the aneurysm with residual perfusion of the aneurysm base; the dashed line indicates the contour of the intracranial stent (o). At 12-month follow-up, the aneurysm was completely occluded and the parent vessel remained patent; the arrow indicates the tip of the completely occluded WEB (p)