ArticleCVIR endovascular2026
Differences between manufacturer-specified and measured effective inner diameters of vascular introducer sheaths: a micro-CT analysis.
Article in CVIR endovascular, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo quantify deviations between the inner diameters specified by manufacturers and the effective diameter of vascular introducer sheaths. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 18 different introducer sheaths (one device per type) with nominal inner diameters (nID) of 5 French (Fr), 6 Fr, and 7 Fr and lengths of 10 cm, 25 cm, and 45 cm, manufactured by four different vendors (Terumo, Biotronik, Merit, and Cook Medical) were evaluated. Non-destructive testing was performed using a commercial Micro-CT system (Comet Yxlon) at three distinct anatomical locations: the hub, middle, and tip/aperture. Cylindrical and circular least-squares fits were applied to calculate the effective inner diameters (eID). The eIDs were compared with the inner diameters specified by the manufacturer (mID) and the nominal inner diameter (nID) in Fr, which both are regularly mentioned for each product.
resultsAll non-braided sheaths revealed eIDs at the hubs, middles, and tips exceeding the mIDs (up to + 8.5%). All eIDs at the sheath aperture were consistently smaller than the mIDs and, with one exception, smaller than the nID. For braided sheaths, most eIDs at the hub were up to 3.4% larger than specified. However, at the tips and the apertures all braided sheaths were smaller than the mID (up to - 10.99%). In comparison with the nID, most braided sheaths were larger.
conclusionRelevant deviations exist between the effective and manufacturer-specified inner diameters of vascular sheaths, especially at the tips. These discrepancies may necessitate the selection of larger sheath sizes to accommodate specific interventional devices, particularly when aperture constraints are critical.
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.