ArticleCurrent neurovascular research2024
Comparison of 4 mm-sized and 3 mm-sized Stent Retrievers in Mechanical Thrombectomy for M2 Occlusion.
Article in Current neurovascular research, 2024. 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.
- Comparison of the Tigertriever and Self-expanding Stent Retrievers for Mechanical Thrombectomy of Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Single-center Experience.Neurologia medico-chirurgica · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionA stent retriever (SR) is widely used in mechanical thrombectomy (MT) for M2 segment occlusion. However, the suitable size of SR in M2 occlusion remains unclear. Therefore, we aimed to compare 4 mm-sized SR with 3 mm-sized SR in M2 occlusion.
methodsPatients who underwent MT with SR for M2 occlusion were dichotomized into 4×20 mm SR and 3×20 mm SR groups. Then, 1:1 propensity score matching was performed. The M2 segment was divided into proximal and distal segments according to the occlusion site. Subgroup analysis was then performed for each cohort.
resultsA total of 111 patients were enrolled, with 4×20 mm SR and 3×20 mm SR applied in 72 (64.9%) and 39 (35.1%) cases, respectively. In propensity score matching, mean number of stent passages for reperfusion was significantly lower in the 4×20 mm SR group than in the 3×20 mm SR group (1.5 ± 0.8 vs. 2.1 ± 1.1; p = 0.004). First-pass reperfusion (FPR) was more highly achieved in the 4×20 mm SR group than in the 3×20 mm SR group (52.6% vs. 42.1%; p = 0.007). In both proximal and distal occlusion cohorts, the 4 mm SR group showed lower mean number of SR passage (p = 0.004 and p = 0.003, respectively) and higher FPR rate than the 3 mm SR group (p = 0.003 and p = 0.007, respectively).
conclusionIn MT for M2 occlusion, 4×20 mm SR enables an effective procedure with lesser SR passage for reperfusion and a higher rate of FPR than 3×20 mm SR.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38584536What 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.