Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37807666›Full record

ArticleInterventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences2026

In vitro comparison of manual and robotic endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke.

Naoki Kaneko, Charles Beaman, Taichiro Imahori, Ariel Takayanagi, Hamidreza Saber, Satoshi Tateshima

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Portable and Versatile Catheter Robot for Image-Guided Cardiovascular Interventions.IEEE/ASME transactions on mechatronics : a joint publication of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society and the ASME Dynamic Systems and Control Division · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Naoki KanekoDepartment of Radiological Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3579-7908
Charles BeamanDepartment of Radiological Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Taichiro ImahoriDepartment of Radiological Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8744-3044
Ariel TakayanagiDepartment of Radiological Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4358-2528
Hamidreza SaberDepartment of Radiological Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Satoshi TateshimaDepartment of Radiological Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
University of California, Los Angeles · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BackgroundRobotic endovascular systems have the potential to reduce radiation exposure to physicians and expand timely neurointerventional access to patients in remote areas. The goal of the study was to determine the feasibility of robotic endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) in an in vitro model.MethodsIn vitro procedures were conducted manually and robotically using the Corpath GRX robotic system in a human vascular simulator with an elastic ovine clot in the M1 segment of the left middle cerebral artery. Due to the limited device compatibility of the CorPath GRX, a simple technique with a stent retriever and guiding catheter without a balloon was used in the study. Seven robotic EVT and manual EVT were carried out in each group. Metrics including procedural time, success rate, and radiation dose were compared between the two groups.ResultsIn robotic EVT, the mean total preparation and procedural time was 892 s, which was significantly longer than manual operation at 357 (p = 0.0001). There was no significant difference in the success rate between the two approaches (robotic: 28.6% vs. manual 42.9%, p = 0.577). The mean radiation exposure to operating physicians was significantly lower during robotic operation compared to manual operation (0.02 μSv vs. 0.22 μSv, p < 0.0001).ConclusionsRobotic EVT was feasible in our human vascular simulator with significantly reduced radiation exposure to the operating physicians, despite an increased length of procedure when compared to manual procedures. Future technological advancement is warranted for reducing procedural length using endovascular robotic techniques.

Indexed as

Endovascular ProceduresIschemic StrokeRobotic Surgical ProceduresThrombectomyAnimalsFeasibility StudiesHumansIn Vitro TechniquesRadiation DosageSheepacute ischemic strokelarge vessel occlusionmechanical thrombectomyradiation exposureRobotics

Identifiers

PMID37807666
PMCPMC13305102
OpenAlexW4387440569

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.