ArticleStereotactic and functional neurosurgery2018
Large-Volume Infusions into the Brain: A Comparative Study of Catheter Designs.
Article in Stereotactic and functional neurosurgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- H3K27-altered diffuse midline glioma: a paradigm shifting opportunity in direct delivery of targeted therapeutics.Expert opinion on therapeutic targets · 2023Review
- A Historical Review of Brain Drug Delivery.Pharmaceutics · 2022Review
- Convection-enhanced delivery for high-grade glioma.Neuro-oncology practice · 2022Review
- Convection-Enhanced Delivery in Children: Techniques and Applications.Advances and technical standards in neurosurgery · 2022Review
- Tissue distribution of ethanol after intraprostatic injection using a porous needle.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Determinants of Intraparenchymal Infusion Distributions: Modeling and Analyses of Human Glioblastoma Trials.Pharmaceutics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aims"Whole-brain" infusions have emerged as a potential need with the promise of disease-modifying therapies for neurodegenerative diseases. In addition, several current clinical trials in brain cancer utilize direct delivery of drugs that are required to fill large volumes. Such requirements may not be well served by conventional single port catheters with their "point source" of delivery. Our aim is to examine infusions into large volumes of heterogeneous tissue, aiming for uniformity of distribution.
methodsA porous catheter (porous brain infusion catheter, PBIC), designed by Twin Star TDS LLC, for brain infusions was developed for this study and compared with another convection-enhanced delivery catheter (SmartFlowTM NGS-NC-03 from MRI Interventions, a step end-port catheter, SEPC) in current use in clinical trials. The studies were in vivo in porcine brain. A total of 8 pigs were used: the size of the pig brain limited the porous length to 15 mm. The placements of the tips of the two catheters were chosen to be the same (at the respective brain hemispheres).
resultsThe PBIC and SEPC both performed comparably and well, with the PBIC having some advantage in effecting larger distributions: p ∼ 0.045, with 5 infusions from each.
conclusionsGiven the performance of the PBIC, it would be highly appropriate to use the device for therapeutic infusions in human clinical trials to assess its capability for large-volume infusions.
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.