Aneurysm Treatment with Woven EndoBridge-17: Angiographic and Clinical Results at 12 Months from a Retrospective, 2-Center Series

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Goyal N,
   2. Hoit D,
   3. Dinitto J, et al

   . How to WEB: a practical review of methodology for the use of the Woven EndoBridge. J Neurointerv Surg 2020;12:512–20 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2019-015506 pmid:32005760

   CrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   1. Pierot L,
   2. Szikora I,
   3. Barreau X, et al

   . Aneurysm treatment with the Woven EndoBridge (WEB) device in the combined population of two prospective, multicenter series: 5-year follow-up. J Neurointerv Surg 2022 July 8 [Epub ahead of print] doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2021-018414 pmid:35803731

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   1. Pierot L,
   2. Costalat V,
   3. Moret J, et al

   . Safety and efficacy of aneurysm treatment with WEB: results of the WEBCAST study. J Neurosurg 2016;124:1250–56 doi:10.3171/2015.2.JNS142634 pmid:26381253

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   1. Papagiannaki C,
   2. Spelle L,
   3. Januel AC, et al

   . WEB intrasaccular flow disruptor-Prospective, multicenter experience in 83 patients with 85 aneurysms. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2014;35:2106–11 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4028 pmid:24994823

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
5. 5.↵
   1. Pierot L,
   2. Gubucz I,
   3. Buhk JH, et al

   . Safety and efficacy of aneurysm treatment with the WEB: results of the WEBCAST 2 study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2017;38:1151–55 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5178 pmid:28450432

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   1. Pierot XL,
   2. Moret J,
   3. Turjman F, et al

   . WEB French observatory. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2016;37:655–59 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4578 pmid:26514608

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   1. Pierot L,
   2. Moret J,
   3. Barreau X, et al

   . Safety and efficacy of aneurysm treatment with WEB in the cumulative population of three prospective, multicenter series. J Neurointerv Surg 2018;10:556–62 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2017-013448 pmid:28965106

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   1. Pierot L,
   2. Szikora I,
   3. Barreau X, et al

   . Aneurysm treatment with WEB in the cumulative population of two prospective, multicenter series: 3-year follow-up. J Neurointerv Surg 2021;13:363–68 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2020-016151 pmid:32532858

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   1. Fiorella D,
   2. Molyneux A,
   3. Coon A, et al

   . Demographic, procedural and 30-day safety results from the WEB Intra-saccular Therapy Study (WEB-IT). J Neurointerv Surg 2017;9:1191–96 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2016-012841 pmid:28096478

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    1. Arthur AS,
    2. Molyneux A,
    3. Coon AL, et al

    . The safety and effectiveness of the Woven EndoBridge (WEB) system for the treatment of wide-necked bifurcation aneurysms: final 12-month results of the pivotal WEB Intrasaccular Therapy (WEB-IT) study. J Neurointerv Surg 2019;11:924–30 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2019-014815 pmid:30992395

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    1. Pierot L,
    2. Biondi A,
    3. Narata AP, et al

    . Should indications for WEB aneurysm treatment be enlarged? Report of a series of 20 patients with aneurysms in “atypical” locations for WEB treatment. J Neuroradiol 2017;44:203–09 doi:10.1016/j.neurad.2016.12.011 pmid:28262374

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    1. Aguiar G,
    2. Caroff J,
    3. Mihalea C, et al

    . WEB device for treatment of posterior communicating artery aneurysms. J Neurointerv Surg 2022;14:362–65 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2021-017405 pmid:33975921

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    1. Adeeb N,
    2. Dibas M,
    3. Diestro JDB, et al

    . Multicenter study for the treatment of sidewall versus bifurcation intracranial aneurysms with use of Woven EndoBridge (WEB). Radiology 2022;304:372–82 doi:10.1148/radiol.212006 pmid:35438564

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    1. Zimmer S,
    2. Maus V,
    3. Maurer C, et al

    . Widening the indications for intrasaccular flow disruption: WEB 17 in the treatment of aneurysm locations different from those in the Good Clinical Practice Trials. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2021;42:524–29 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A6946 pmid:335099 18

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    1. Gawlitza M,
    2. Soize S,
    3. Januel AC, et al

    . Treatment of recurrent aneurysms using the Woven EndoBridge (WEB): anatomical and clinical results. J Neurointerv Surg 2018;10:629–33 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2017-013287 pmid:29054913

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    1. Liebig T,
    2. Kabbasch C,
    3. Strasilla C, et al

    . Intrasaccular flow disruption in acutely ruptured aneurysms: a multicenter retrospective review of the use of the WEB. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2015;36:1721–27 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4347 pmid:26138139

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    1. Popielski J,
    2. Berlis A,
    3. Weber W, et al

    . Two-center experience in the endovascular treatment of ruptured and unruptured intracranial aneurysms using the WEB device: a retrospective analysis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2018;39:111–17 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5413 pmid:29051205

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    1. Spelle L,
    2. Herbreteau D,
    3. Caroff J, et al

    . CLinical Assessment of WEB device in Ruptured aneurYSms (CLARYS): results of 1-month and 1-year assessment of rebleeding protection and clinical safety in a multicenter study. J Neurointerv Surg 2022;14:80714 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2021-017416 pmid:34493578

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    1. Al Saiegh F ,
    2. Hasan D,
    3. Mouchtouris N, et al

    . Treatment of acutely ruptured cerebral aneurysms with the Woven EndoBridge device: experience post-FDA approval. Neurosurg 2020;87:E16–22 doi:10.1093/neuros/nyaa092 pmid:32357228

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    1. Youssef PP,
    2. Dornbos D,
    3. Peterson J, et al

    . Woven EndoBridge (WEB) device in the treatment of ruptured aneurysms. J Neurointerv Surg 2021;13:443–46 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2020-016405 pmid:32719167

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    1. Spelle L,
    2. Herbreteau D,
    3. Caroff J, et al

    . CLinical Assessment of WEB device in Ruptured aneurYSms (CLARYS): 12-month angiographic results of a multicenter study. J Neurointerv Surg 2022 Jul 26 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2022-018749 pmid:35882550

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    1. Van Rooij SBT,
    2. Peluso JP,
    3. Sluzewski M, et al

    . The new low-profile WEB 17 system for treatment of intracranial aneurysms: first clinical experiences. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2018;39:859–63 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5608 pmid:29567650

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    1. Maurer C,
    2. König I,
    3. Berlis A, et al

    . Two-center experience in the endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms using the Woven EndoBridge-17 device including midterm follow-up results: a retrospective analysis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2019;40:1517–22 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A6177 pmid:31467237

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    1. Mihalea C,
    2. Caroff J,
    3. Pagiola I, et al

    . Safety and efficiency of the fifth generation Woven EndoBridge device: technical note. J Neurointerv Surg 2019;11:511–15 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2018-014343 pmid:30655358

    CrossRefPubMed
25. 25.↵
    1. Pagano P,
    2. Paiusan L,
    3. Soize S, et al

    . Intracranial aneurysm treatment with intrasaccular flow disruption: comparison of WEB-21 and WEB-17 systems. J Neurointerv Surg 2022;14:904–09 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2021-017876 pmid:34611031

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    1. König I,
    2. Maurer C,
    3. Berlis A, et al

    . Treatment of ruptured and unruptured intracranial aneurysms with WEB 17 versus WEB 21 systems: comparison of indications and early angiographic outcomes. Clin Neuroradiol 2021;31:691–97 doi:10.1007/s00062-020-00946-7 pmid:32880656

    CrossRefPubMed
27. 27.↵
    1. Goertz L,
    2. Liebig T,
    3. Siebert E, et al

    . Low-profile intra-aneurysmal flow disruptor WEB 17 versus WEB predecessor systems for treatment of small intracranial aneurysms: comparative analysis of procedural safety and feasibility. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2019;40:1766–72 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A6183 pmid:31488499

    CrossRefPubMed