ReviewCureus2021
Recurrent and Residual Aneurysms After Woven EndoBridge (WEB) Therapy: What's Next?
Review in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Aneurysmal recurrence and retreatment modalities after Woven EndoBridge (WEB) device implantation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2026Pooled it
- Long-Term Follow-up of the Woven EndoBridge (WEB) Device for the Treatment of Broad Based Intracranial Aneurysms: A Single-Center Retrospective Observational Analysis.Clinical neuroradiology · 2026Observational
- Triple Woven EndoBridge device strategy for recurrent basilar tip aneurysm: A case report.Surgical neurology international · 2025Article
- Rupture of a Previously Unruptured Cerebral Aneurysm 6 Years After Treatment With the Woven EndoBridge (WEB) Device: Case Report.Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The prevalence of recurrent and residual aneurysms following Woven EndoBridge (WEB) treatment is not insignificant. The goal of this systematic review was to evaluate retreatment methods for such aneurysms and their outcomes. PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases were systematically searched, and results were reported according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Original studies reporting on aneurysms that were retreated after WEB were included. Sixteen studies (n = 901 aneurysms), of which three were prospective, reported on retreated aneurysms following initial WEB treatment. Of those 901 aneurysms, on average 18.7 ± 11.5% were recurrent or residual at the last follow-up and 10.7 ± 11% required some form of retreatment. When compared to WEB-IT (WEB Intra-saccular Therapy) data, retreated aneurysms were more likely to be large in size (p < 0.0001) and more likely to have been initially treated with the WEB dual-layer configuration. The mean age of those with retreated aneurysms was 58 ± 5.7 years old, and the mean size of aneurysm dome was 11.1 ± 5.5 millimeters. Majority (34.1%) of the aneurysms were located at the basilar apex. Retreatment modalities included coiling (20%), stent-assisted coiling (38.7%), additional WEB device (13.3%), flow diversion (16%), and clipping (12%). Majority of retreated cases had favorable outcomes, with 96.4 ± 13.4% of the cases demonstrating technical success and 90.5 ± 18.2% having adequate occlusion at the last follow-up. Our systematic review suggests that retreatment of recurrent and residual aneurysms after initial WEB treatment is feasible. Future prospective studies would be helpful in validating these results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.