SynthesisNeurosurgical review2022
Transradial versus transfemoral access for endovascular therapy of intracranial aneurysms: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Transradial versus transfemoral access in carotid artery stenting: A meta-analysis.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2026Pooled it
- Feasibility and Safety of High RIST Catheter Placement via Transradial Approach for Unruptured Anterior Circulation Aneurysm: A Single-center Era-based Retrospective Study.Neurologia medico-chirurgica · 2026Article
- Radiation exposure in transradial versus transfemoral access in endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms.European radiology · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of cerebral angiography via right versus left radial artery approaches.BMC neurology · 2025Article
- Callosomarginal artery: an in-depth of anatomical characteristics, clinical significance, neurosurgical considerations, and surgical applications.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2025Review
- Structural radial artery modifications following transradial access: Mechanisms, clinical implications, and preventive strategies.World journal of cardiology · 2025Review
- Association of follow-up neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio with postoperative pneumonia in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage patients after endovascular treatment: a retrospective analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Mobilization in Neurocritical Care: Challenges and Opportunities.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2024Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Endovascular treatment is widely used in the treatment of intracranial aneurysms. However, neurosurgeons are sceptical about endovascular access via the radial artery. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness and safety of transradial and transfemoral artery access in patients with intracranial aneurysms. We systematically searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases for studies comparing the two approaches. The primary outcome was total complications, and the secondary outcomes were access site complications, intracranial haemorrhage, stroke, thromboembolism, silent infarct, re-treatment rate, mortality, complete occlusion of intracranial aneurysms, procedure duration, and length of hospital stay. A random-effects model was used to assess the pooled data. Of the 100 identified studies, 6 were eligible (a total of 3764 participants). There were no significant differences in total complications(odds ratio [OR] = 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.33, 1.45], p = 0.32), complete occlusion of intracranial aneurysms (OR = 1.02, 95%CI [0.77,1.37], p = 0.87), procedure duration (mean difference [MD] = - 6.24, 95%CI [- 14.75, - 1.54], p = 0.95), or length of hospital stay (MD = 2.204, 95%CI [- 0.05, 4.45], p = 0.95), access site complications (OR = 0.49, 95%CI [0.16, 1.52], p = 0.22), intracranial haemorrhage (OR = 1.07, 95%CI [0.49, 2.34], p = 0.86), stroke (OR = 0.59, 95%CI [0.20, 1.77], p = 0.35), thromboembolism (OR = 0.85, 95%CI [0.33, 2.17], p = 0.74), silent infarct (OR = 0.69, 95%CI [0.04, 11.80], p = 0.80), retreatment rate (OR = 1.32, 95%CI [0.70, 2.48], p = 0.39), mortality (OR = 1.41, 95%CI [0.06, 5.20], p = 0.61), immediate occlusion (OR = 0.99, 95%CI [0.64, 1.51], p = 0.95), and occlusion during follow-up (OR = 1.10, 95%CI [0.56, 2.16], p = 0.74) between the transradial and transfemoral groups. This study showed comparable safety and efficacy outcomes between transradial and transfemoral access in patients with intracranial aneurysms treated endovascularly. Future large randomised trials are warranted to confirm these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36129583What 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.