ArticleFrontiers in neurology2023
Evaluation of intracranial stenting in a simulated training and assessment environment for neuroendovascular procedures.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and Validation of a Novel Stenosis Model for Percutaneous Transluminal Angioplasty Training of the Internal Carotid Artery.Clinical neuroradiology · 2026Article
- Assessing the State of Training in Congenital Interventional Cardiology: A Global Survey of Program Directors.Pediatric cardiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Given the inherent complexity of neurointerventional procedures and the associated risks of ionizing radiation exposure, it is crucial to prioritize ongoing training and improve safety protocols. The aim of this study is to assess a training and evaluation Materials and methods: Using a transparent model replicating M1 stenosis, we conducted intracranial stenting procedures with four different setups (Gateway & Wingspan, Gateway & Enterprise, Neurospeed & Acclino, and Pharos Vitesse). A video camera was integrated with the angiography system's monitor for real-time visualization, while a foot switch was employed to simulate live fluoroscopy. Three neuroradiologists with varying levels of expertise performed each procedure for three times. The total duration of fluoroscopy as well as the time from passing the stenosis with the wire to completion of the procedure were recorded using a dedicated software designed for this experimental setup. Results: Compared to the Gateway & Wingspan procedure, the total fluoroscopy time reduced significantly with the Gateway & Enterprise, Neurospeed & Acclino, and Pharos Vitesse procedures by 51.56 s, 111.33 s, and 144.89 s, respectively ( Conclusion: Procedures requiring wire exchange maneuvers exhibited nearly twice the fluoroscopy time in comparison to balloon-mounted stenting or stent-placement via PTA balloon catheters. The more experienced neuroradiologist demonstrated significantly quicker performance in line with expectations in a real-life clinical setting, when compared to the less experienced interventionalist. This
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.