Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21603169›Full record

ArticleStroke research and treatment2011

Comparison of the Effectiveness of Three Methods of Recanalization in a Model of the Middle Cerebral Artery: Thrombus Aspiration via a 4F Catheter, Thrombus Aspiration via the GP Thromboaspiration Device, and Mechanical Thrombectomy Using the Solitaire Thrombectomy Device.

Christopher Tennuci, Gillian Pearce, Julian Wong, Sanjeev Nayak, Tom Jones, Frank Lally, Christine Roffe

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Stroke research and treatment, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The effect of distal aspiration catheter position on collateral flow in mechanical thrombectomy - anInterventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Christopher TennuciSchool of Medicine, Keele University, Staffordshire ST5 5BG, UK.
Gillian Pearce
Julian Wong
Sanjeev Nayak
Tom Jones
Frank Lally
Christine Roffe
Keele University · GBUniversity of Staffordshire · GBUniversity of Wolverhampton · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction. This paper compares different approaches to recanalization in a model of the middle cerebral artery (MCA). Methods. An occlusive thrombus (lamb's blood) was introduced into the MCA of a model of the cerebral circulation perfused with Hartmann's solution (80 pulsations/min, mean pressure 90 mm Hg). Three methods of clot retrieval were tested: thrombus aspiration via a 4F catheter (n = 26), thrombus aspiration via the GP thrombus aspiration device (GPTAD) (n = 30), and mechanical thrombectomy via the Solitaire Device (n = 30). Results. Recanalization rate was similar for all 3 approaches (62%, 77%, and 85%). Time to recanalization was faster with aspiration devices (41 SD 42 s for 4F and 61 SD 21 s for GPTAD) than with the Solitaire (197 SD 64 s P < .05 Kruksal-Wallis). Clot fragmentation was the same in the Solitaire (23%) and the GPTAD (23%), but higher with the 4F (53%, P < .05). Conclusion. In this model, thrombus aspiration was faster than mechanical thrombectomy, and similarly effective at recanalization. These results should be confirmed in vivo.

Identifiers

PMID21603169
PMCPMC3095900
OpenAlexW2028214313

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.