Safety and efficacy of the Woven Endo-Bridge-17 device for intracranial aneurysm treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundThe Woven Endo-Bridge (WEB) device revolutionized the treatment of wide-necked bifurcation aneurysms by intrasaccular flow diversion. The latest advancement is the WEB-17 system, offering greater flexibility with fewer wires, enabling treatment of smaller distal aneurysms using smaller microcatheters than the WEB-21 system.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review following preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines, analyzing data from seven retrospective cohort studies involving 483 aneurysms treated with the WEB-17 device. Statistical analysis computed pooled prevalence rates and 95% confidence intervals using appropriate models for each outcome and R software version 4.3.1 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).ResultsTechnical success was achieved in 475 out of 483 aneurysms treated with the WEB-17 device, with a success rate of 98.34% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 96.72-99.17). Among the successful cases, 4.97% (95% CI = 1.60-14.39) required adjunctive devices. Adequate occlusion, defined as complete occlusion or neck remnants, was observed in 94.41% (95% CI = 88.17-97.46) of cases. Periprocedural complications were infrequent, with thromboembolic complications occurring in 4.93% (95% CI = 3.29-7.30) of cases, hemorrhagic complications in 1.28% (95% CI = 0.58-2.83), and postprocedural neurologic complications in 0.99% (95% CI = 0.31-3.14). Procedure-related morbidity was observed in 1.71% (95% CI = 0.86-3.39) of cases, and there was one procedure-related mortality reported at 0.21% (95% CI = .03-1.50). Mortality unrelated to the procedure occurred in 1% (95% CI = 0.23-4.15).ConclusionOur findings suggest that the WEB-17 device is associated with a high rate of technical success, favorable angiographic outcomes, and a low rate of periprocedural complications. Further research, including prospective trials, is needed to confirm these findings and establish its safety and efficacy definitively.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".