ArticleNeurosurgical review2025
The application of Trans-Radial telescoping catheter technique with a Distal Access catheter and Simmons catheter (RDAS) in neurointerventional procedures: A dual-center experience.
Article in Neurosurgical review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study evaluated the feasibility and efficacy of the Trans-Radial telescoping catheter technique using a Distal Access catheter and Simmons catheter (RDAS) compared to the traditional Catheter Exchange Technique (CET) in neurointerventional procedures via the transradial approach (TRA). A retrospective analysis was performed for 149 consecutive patients undergoing neurointerventions via TRA in 2 dedicated neurointerventional centers, using either RDAS (n = 124) or CET (n = 25). Key endpoints included technical success rate, procedural time, and fluoroscopy time. RDAS demonstrated a 100% technical success rate, compared to 88% in the CET group. Mean procedural time taken (RDAS 13.4 min [range = 6.1-23.7] versus CET 19.3 min [range = 8.7-45.7]; p = 0.003) and fluoroscopy time length (RDAS 8.1 min [range = 3.9-16.5] versus CET 10.6 min [range = 6.2-23.6]; p = 0.024) were significantly lower in RDAS than in CET. RDAS consistently allowed placement of the guiding catheter into the petrous ICA or beyond in 94.4% of cases. No procedure-related complications were observed. Compared to CET, RDAS technique allows improved efficacy and time-efficiency in neurointerventional procedures via TRA. Clinical trial number Not applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40423829What 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.