Abstract
Objective: Compared with stent-assisted coiling (SAC), the Woven EndoBridge (WEB; Terumo Neuro, Aliso Viejo, CA, USA) device has been reported to reduce procedural duration, suggesting the potential to reduce radiation exposure for both patients and operators. However, whether WEB treatment results in lower radiation exposure than SAC has not been fully investigated. This study therefore aimed to evaluate radiation exposure associated with WEB treatment versus SAC in the management of unruptured wide-neck bifurcation aneurysms (WNBAs).
Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 46 patients treated for 47 unruptured intracranial aneurysms located at the basilar artery apex, middle cerebral artery bifurcation, or anterior communicating artery at our institution between February 2023 and April 2024. Patients were categorized into 2 groups based on the treatment modality: SAC or WEB device. Radiation exposure, fluoroscopy time, procedure duration, and number of imaging procedures were compared between groups.
Results: Baseline characteristics, including age, sex, and aneurysm location, did not differ significantly between groups. However, aneurysms were significantly larger in the WEB group, with both greater median aneurysm volume (61.9 vs. 43.2 mm3, P <0.001) and maximum dome diameter (8.2 vs. 5.4 mm, P <0.001). Radiation exposure was significantly lower in the WEB group, as indicated by lower median values for both air kerma (1888 vs. 3496 mGy, P <0.001) and dose–area product (126.3 vs. 158.9 Gy·cm2, P = 0.002). The WEB group also showed significantly shorter values for both fluoroscopy time (49.1 vs. 102.3 min, P = 0.003) and procedure duration (97 vs. 146 min, P = 0.01). The number of imaging procedures and contrast medium volume did not differ significantly between groups.
Conclusion: In the endovascular treatment of unruptured WNBAs, the WEB device significantly reduces radiation exposure compared with SAC, primarily by decreasing fluoroscopy time. Given this potential to minimize radiation exposure, the WEB device may be preferable when both methods are clinically viable.
