ArticleNeurosurgery practice2026
Direct Carotid Puncture for Mechanical Thrombectomy: Technical Advances in Access and Closure.
Article in Neurosurgery practice, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesMechanical thrombectomy (MT) is the standard of care for patients with anterior circulation acute ischemic stroke with large-vessel occlusion and is traditionally performed through transfemoral access (TFA). In cases of difficult vascular anatomy, however, TFA may be prohibitive to achieving reperfusion in a timely manner, and alternative access methods must be used. Direct carotid puncture (DCP) has previously been described only as a bail-out access strategy fraught with complications, with inconsistent access and closure methods used. This study describes our DCP protocol and analyzes patient and procedural outcomes of MT performed through DCP, aiming to determine if expeditious DCP during MT can lead to safe and successful outcomes comparable with those of TFA.
methodsTwenty-two patients who underwent MT through DCP at a single institution from 2017 through 2025 were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical details and outcomes data were collected, including indications for DCP, devices used, technical success of the procedure/revascularization scores, puncture, and revascularization times.
resultsOf 510 MT performed, 4.3% were via DCP. IV thrombolytic was administered in 45% of DCP cases. Reasons for conversion to DCP were for type 3 and/or tortuous arch (73%) or femoral/iliac artery occlusion/stenosis (27%). Average time from groin to carotid puncture was 30 minutes and from carotid puncture to reperfusion was 28 minutes, compared with our average reperfusion time of 22 minutes for TFA cases. Successful revascularization was achieved in 90.1% of DCP cases, with 0 procedural complications. All patients underwent sheath removal through carotid cutdown in the operating room after the endovascular procedure.
conclusionDCP is a safe, feasible, and effective technique for revascularization in acute stroke intervention in patients with difficult anatomy. Given the average time from DCP to reperfusion is comparable with TFA, timely conversion to DCP up-front may improve procedural outcomes in cases of obvious complex anatomy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.