SynthesisNeurosurgical review2026
Direct aspiration vs. stent retriever for middle cerebral artery M2 occlusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Thrombectomy with direct aspiration (DA) or stent retriever (SR) are equally effective for endovascular treatment of proximal occlusions. However, their efficacy and safety in distal occlusions, such as those in the M2 segment of the middle cerebral artery, remain uncertain. Therefore, we aim to compare the efficacy and safety of these two approaches in M2 occlusions. This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42025649001). We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for studies comparing DA to SR in patients with middle artery M2 occlusion until June 2025. The primary endpoint was successful reperfusion (modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction score [mTICI] 2b-3), and secondary endpoints included complete reperfusion (mTICI 3), first-pass successful reperfusion, favorable functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] ≤ 2), symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH), subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH), vasospasm, and mortality. Statistical analysis was conducted in R Studio (version 2024.12.1 + 563), using risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Twelve studies were included (N, 1578; age, 69.8 ± 9 years; men, 52.0%). DA was associated with higher likelihood of successful reperfusion (RR 1.06 [95% CI: 1.01–1.11], P = .02; I2 = 0%). Meta-regression analysis showed that between-studies variability in age, NIHSS, ASPECTS, use of intravenous thrombolysis, history of stroke, atrial fibrillation, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, history of smoking, and dyslipidemia did not significantly alter the pooled estimate of successful reperfusion. Furthermore, DA was associated with a lower risk of SAH (RR 0.29 [95% CI: 0.10–0.81], P = .03; I2 = 0%). However, complete reperfusion, first-pass successful reperfusion, favorable functional outcome, sICH, vasospasm, and mortality did not significantly differ between groups. In this meta-analysis, DA for middle artery M2 occlusion led to a higher likelihood of successful reperfusion and a lower risk of SAH when compared to SR.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41826568What 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.