Clinical neuroradiology · 2020
Different Rescue Approaches of Migrated Woven Endobridge (WEB) Devices: an Animal Study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Simgen Andreas, Kettner Michael, Dietrich Philipp, Tomori Toshiki, Mühl-Benninghaus Ruben, Bhogal Pervinder, Laschke Matthias W, Menger Michael D, Reith Wolfgang, Yilmaz Umut
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Treatment of wide-necked intracranial aneurysms using the Woven Endobridge (WEB) device has become broadly accepted. Feared complications with the potential of increased poor clinical outcome include dislocations and migration of the device. This study was carried out to determine the effectiveness of a variety of different strategies to rescue migrated WEB devices.
METHODS: In a porcine model, WEB devices of different sizes (SL [single layer] 3.5 × 2mm and SL 4.0 × 3 mm, SL 8 × 5 mm and SLS 8 mm [single layer spherical]) were placed into both the subclavian and axillary arteries. A total of 32 rescue maneuvers (8 per rescue device) were performed. Small WEBs were rescued using reperfusion catheters (RC) (SOFIA Plus and JET 7), larger WEBs were rescued using dedicated rescue devices (Microsnare and Alligator). Rescue rates, times, attempts and complications were assessed.
RESULTS: Rescue attempts of migrated WEBs were successful in all cases (100%). Rescue time (p = 0.421) and attempts (p = 0.619) of small WEBs using RCs were comparable without significant differences. Aspiration alone was not successful for larger WEBs. Rescue of larger WEBs was slightly faster (122.75 ± 41.15 s vs. 137.50 ± 54.46 s) with fewer attempts (1 vs. 1.37) when using the Microsnare compared to the Alligator device. Complications such as entrapment of the WEB in the RCs, vasospasm, perforation, or dissection were not observed.
CONCLUSION: Rescue of migrated WEB devices is a feasible and effective method and 100% successful rescue rates and appropriate rescue times can be achieved for small WEBs using RCs and for larger WEBs using dedicated rescue devices (Microsnare and Alligator).
METHODS: In a porcine model, WEB devices of different sizes (SL [single layer] 3.5 × 2mm and SL 4.0 × 3 mm, SL 8 × 5 mm and SLS 8 mm [single layer spherical]) were placed into both the subclavian and axillary arteries. A total of 32 rescue maneuvers (8 per rescue device) were performed. Small WEBs were rescued using reperfusion catheters (RC) (SOFIA Plus and JET 7), larger WEBs were rescued using dedicated rescue devices (Microsnare and Alligator). Rescue rates, times, attempts and complications were assessed.
RESULTS: Rescue attempts of migrated WEBs were successful in all cases (100%). Rescue time (p = 0.421) and attempts (p = 0.619) of small WEBs using RCs were comparable without significant differences. Aspiration alone was not successful for larger WEBs. Rescue of larger WEBs was slightly faster (122.75 ± 41.15 s vs. 137.50 ± 54.46 s) with fewer attempts (1 vs. 1.37) when using the Microsnare compared to the Alligator device. Complications such as entrapment of the WEB in the RCs, vasospasm, perforation, or dissection were not observed.
CONCLUSION: Rescue of migrated WEB devices is a feasible and effective method and 100% successful rescue rates and appropriate rescue times can be achieved for small WEBs using RCs and for larger WEBs using dedicated rescue devices (Microsnare and Alligator).