Observational studyNeurosurgical review2025
Safety and efficacy of transradial versus transfemoral access in coil embolization of unruptured intracranial aneurysms: One-Year outcomes from a multicenter propensity Score-Matched cohort.
Observational study 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The transradial approach (TRA) reduces access site complications (ASCs) compared with the transfemoral approach (TFA) in neuroendovascular procedures. However, its stability of efficacy after unruptured intracranial aneurysm (UIA) embolization remains unclear. This study aimed to compare recanalization rates, safety, and procedural outcomes between TFA and TRA.We retrospectively analyzed 425 saccular UIAs (413 patients) treated with initial coil embolization at three institutions between March 2021 and September 2023. Patients were classified into TFA and TRA groups. A propensity score-matched analysis controlled for clinical, anatomical, and procedural variables. Recanalization and safety outcomes were assessed at a 1-year follow-up.Of the 425 aneurysms, embolization was performed via the TFA in 354 cases (83%) and via the TRA in 71 cases (17%). A total of 62 matched pairs from the TFA and TRA groups were identified using propensity score matching. There was no significant difference in the recanalization rate between the two groups: 6.5% in the TFA group (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.5-15.4%) and 8.1% in the TRA group (95% CI, 3.5-17.5%; P = 1.00). Similarly, no significant differences were observed in the rate of re-treatment, Raymond-Roy occlusion classification immediately after treatment, or the immediate post-procedural volume embolization ratio. In contrast, the overall incidence of ASCs was significantly higher in the TFA group, occurring in 15% of patients (95% CI, 7.8-25.3%) compared with 1.6% in the TRA group (95% CI, 0.3-8.6%; P = 0.02).While recanalization and other procedural outcomes were comparable between TRA and TFA, the significantly lower rate of ASCs associated with TRA highlights its clinical advantage. These findings support the adoption of TRA as a safer and equally effective alternative to TFA for coil embolization of UIAs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40759862What 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.