ArticleNeurointervention2020
Bench-Top Comparison of Three Different Types of Stents Used for Treatment of Intracranial Atherosclerotic Stenosis.
Article in Neurointervention, 2020. 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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Drug-eluting stent versus bare metal stent for symptomatic intracranial stenosis: a comparative systematic review and meta-analysis study.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- Additive Manufacturing of Polymeric Bioresorbable Stents: A Mechanical Performance Perspective.Biomaterials research · 2026Review
- Preclinical Evaluation of a Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent for Intracranial Application: A 30-Day Procedural Feasibility and Clinical Observation Canine Study.Journal of neuroimaging : official journal of the American Society of NeuroimagingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeFour key bench-top tests, including trackability, conformability, wall-apposition, and bending stiffness, were performed to understand the mechanical characteristics in 3 different types of stents applicable for treatment of intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis: Balloon-expandable D+Storm, Pro-Kinetic Energy, and self-expandable Wingspan stents. MATERIALS AND
methodsTrackability was assessed by measuring the tracking forces of each stent with its delivery systems. Conformability and wall apposition were quantified and analyzed using curved vessel models. A 3-point bending test was employed to evaluate bending stiffness.
resultsD+Storm showed the lowest tracking forces while the conformability of the Wingspan stent was superior to that of the tested stents. Pro-Kinetic Energy and D+Storm had better wall apposition in curved vessels than the Wingspan stent. Bending stiffness of the Wingspan stent was notably lower, whereas no significant differences were found between D+Storm and Energy. Pro-Kinetic Energy and D+Storm not only indicated lower gap ratios between the struts and the vessel wall but also maintained good wall apposition even in the curved model.
conclusionThese bench-top measurements may provide clinicians with useful information in regard to selecting suitable stents for treatment of intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis.
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.