ArticleEJVES vascular forum2022
Quantifying the Functional Stiffness of Pullthrough Wires Used for Endovascular Aneurysm Repairs Using Comparative Tension Dynamometry.
Article in EJVES vascular forum, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Alto Deployment in Patients With Severe Tortuosity of the Proximal Aorta: AnEJVES vascular forum · 2026Article
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 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: There are only few studies on the stiffness of guidewires used to deliver devices during endovascular procedures, particularly abdominal/thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair. In certain situations, tensioned pullthrough wires are also used, but no studies have examined their effective/functional stiffness. The objective of this study was to assess the radial stiffness characteristics of pullthrough wires compared with standard stiff wires. Methods: Two types of stiff guidewires (Lunderquist Extra-Stiff and Amplatz Super Stiff; 0.035″ × 260 cm), were compared with a floppy guidewire (Radifocus Stiff M; 0.035″ × 260 cm) in two configurations: standard (non-tensioned) and pullthrough (tensioned). Radial stiffness was defined as the peak deformation force (PDF; newtons [N]) needed to deform the wires on an electromechanical dynamometer; data were logged on proprietary dynamometric software and peak load values assessed per wire. Three experimental runs were performed on three fresh sets of each wire per configuration. PDFs from straight configuration to midwire deformation at 15 mm were translated into Microsoft Excel for statistical analysis in Minitab 19 for Windows. Results: Mean ± SD PDFs were 7.83 ± 0.23 N for the Lunderquist and 9.87 ± 0.92 N for the Amplatz. This was 7.84 ± 0.52 N for the Radifocus wire in standard configuration, which increased to 15.48 ± 0.33 N when the Radifocus wire was in pullthrough configuration. This was significantly higher than both the Lunderquist and Amplatz Super Stiff wires ( Conclusion: This study affirmed that a pullthrough wire becomes functionally more rigid than typical stiff wires used for endovascular procedures, and it is this stiffness that allows device delivery.
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.