P013 Woven EndoBridge device or stent assisted coiling for treatment of the intracranial bifurcation aneurysms: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The Woven EndoBridge (WEB), an intrasaccular disruption device, offers a novel option for complex aneurysms, particularly bifurcation aneurysms. Aim of Study In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aim to compare the safety and efficacy of WEB devices with stent-assisted coiling (SAC) for intracranial bifurcation aneurysms. Methods We systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases in October 2023 following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We aimed to compare aneurysmal occlusion, procedural time, retreatment, and complication rates as secondary objectives. The comparison between the two techniques was performed using a weighted random-effects model, and the quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for cohort studies. Results The authors analyzed five studies encompassing 298 and 203 patients in SAC and WEB groups, respectively. Complete (53.8%, OR, 0.97; 95%CI: 0.63-1.49, I2= 0%) and adequate (77.8%, OR: 0.88; 95%CI: 0.51-1.5, I2= 0%) occlusion didn’t differ between two groups. The overall procedural time mean difference was 38.2 minutes, significantly higher in the SAC group (95%CI, 26.9-49.6, I2=53.4%). Retreatment rates did not significantly differ between the two groups (OR: 1.34; 95%CI: 0.37-4.85, I2=61.7%). The SAC group experienced more complications during and after the operation (OR, 2.82; 95%CI: 1.07-7.44, I2=0%). The pooled follow-up duration was 22.1 and 13.5 months for the SAC and WEB groups respectively. Conclusion The WEB demonstrates comparable efficacy in occluding bifurcation aneurysms compared to SAC, with the added benefits of reduced procedural time and lower complication rates. Disclosure of Interest no.
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 | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| 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) | 0.006 | 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".