ArticleInterventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences2019
Stenting of symptomatic lateral sinus thrombosis refractory to mechanical thrombectomy.
Article in Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Innovation and development of stent retrievers in acute ischemic stroke.Frontiers of medicine · 2025Review
- Early Versus Late Initiation of Endovascular Therapy in Patients with Severe Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis.Neurocritical care · 2024Article
- Evolution and advances in endovascular mechanical thrombectomy of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis.International journal of medical sciences · 2024Review
- Endovascular Treatment of Intracranial Vein and Venous Sinus Thrombosis-A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveEndovascular mechanical thrombectomy for the treatment of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis is not always successful. We present our experience of using self-expanding stents to facilitate effective recanalization of persistent lateral sinus thrombosis refractory to endovascular mechanical thrombectomy.
methodsData from patients who underwent endovascular mechanical thrombectomy for the treatment of acute symptomatic cerebral venous sinus thrombosis between August 2015 and July 2018 were evaluated. Patient demographics, procedural techniques, devices used and follow-up outcomes were assessed.
resultsA total of 14 patients underwent endovascular mechanical thrombectomy during the study period. Of these, stenting of the occluded sinus was performed in five patients with extensive sinus thrombosis after conventional endovascular mechanical thrombectomy. Three of the five patients had a variable degree of venous infarction and/or hemorrhage before treatment. The target lesion was located in the right lateral sinus in all five patients. Due to the length of the involved sinus, two stents were required in one patient and three stents in two patients. The only procedure-related complication was an asymptomatic tearing of the sinus wall in one patient. Stent patency could not be maintained in two patients due to stent buckling within the jugular foramen segment and an inability to maintain antiplatelet medication. Modified Rankin Scale scores at 2-16 months were zero in two patients, one in two patients, and five in one patient.
conclusionsStenting for the thrombotic occlusion of the lateral sinus is a feasible rescue method to overcome unsuccessful endovascular mechanical thrombectomy. However, currently available stenting systems may be unsuitable for use in the intracranial dural sinus system.
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.