神经血管内手术的放射特异性导管:系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Ali Mortezaei, Nadir Al-Saidi, Ibrahim Mohammadzadeh, Jamal Behnood, Muhammed Amir Essibayi, Khaled M Taghlabi, Ahmed Abdelsalam, Mohammad Amin Habibi, Bardia Hajikarimloo, Luis Guada-Delgado, Ram Saha, Redi Rahmani, Amir H Faraji, Robert M Starke
{"title":"神经血管内手术的放射特异性导管:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Ali Mortezaei, Nadir Al-Saidi, Ibrahim Mohammadzadeh, Jamal Behnood, Muhammed Amir Essibayi, Khaled M Taghlabi, Ahmed Abdelsalam, Mohammad Amin Habibi, Bardia Hajikarimloo, Luis Guada-Delgado, Ram Saha, Redi Rahmani, Amir H Faraji, Robert M Starke","doi":"10.1007/s10143-025-03765-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite a radial-first approach in many neurointerventions, there are no systematic reviews and meta-analysis which comprehensively assess radial-specific catheter for neuroendovascular procedures. A systematic literature search was conducted through four electronic databases based on PRISMA 2020 guideline. Risk of bias was assessed employing Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. A total of eleven studies with 990 patients using Armadillo, RIST, Zoom RDL, and BMX 81 catheters were included. The Armadillo showed significantly lower failure to catheterize the target vessel (0.0% vs. 3.04%, P = 0.036) than RIST. The Zoom RDL catheter had relatively higher failure rate of 10.3%. There was no significant difference between the Armadillo and RIST catheters in procedure-related complications. There were no reported cases of arterial spasm or hemorrhage for Armadillo catheter. RIST catheter had a 3.2% rate of neurological complications, a 3.1% rate of transfemoral conversion, and a 1.8% rate of hematoma. The BMX 81 catheter had a 2.5% rate of arterial vasospasm and a 5% rate of procedure-related complications. The Zoom RDL catheter had consistent rates of procedure-related, transfemoral conversion, and neurological complications, all at 6.9%, with insufficient data on other complications.</p>","PeriodicalId":19184,"journal":{"name":"Neurosurgical Review","volume":"48 1","pages":"626"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12394285/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Radial-specific catheters for neuroendovascular procedures: A systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Ali Mortezaei, Nadir Al-Saidi, Ibrahim Mohammadzadeh, Jamal Behnood, Muhammed Amir Essibayi, Khaled M Taghlabi, Ahmed Abdelsalam, Mohammad Amin Habibi, Bardia Hajikarimloo, Luis Guada-Delgado, Ram Saha, Redi Rahmani, Amir H Faraji, Robert M Starke\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10143-025-03765-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite a radial-first approach in many neurointerventions, there are no systematic reviews and meta-analysis which comprehensively assess radial-specific catheter for neuroendovascular procedures. A systematic literature search was conducted through four electronic databases based on PRISMA 2020 guideline. Risk of bias was assessed employing Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. A total of eleven studies with 990 patients using Armadillo, RIST, Zoom RDL, and BMX 81 catheters were included. The Armadillo showed significantly lower failure to catheterize the target vessel (0.0% vs. 3.04%, P = 0.036) than RIST. The Zoom RDL catheter had relatively higher failure rate of 10.3%. There was no significant difference between the Armadillo and RIST catheters in procedure-related complications. There were no reported cases of arterial spasm or hemorrhage for Armadillo catheter. RIST catheter had a 3.2% rate of neurological complications, a 3.1% rate of transfemoral conversion, and a 1.8% rate of hematoma. The BMX 81 catheter had a 2.5% rate of arterial vasospasm and a 5% rate of procedure-related complications. The Zoom RDL catheter had consistent rates of procedure-related, transfemoral conversion, and neurological complications, all at 6.9%, with insufficient data on other complications.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19184,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neurosurgical Review\",\"volume\":\"48 1\",\"pages\":\"626\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12394285/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neurosurgical Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-025-03765-x\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurosurgical Review","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-025-03765-x","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:尽管在许多神经干预中采用放射优先的方法,但目前还没有系统的综述和荟萃分析来全面评估神经血管内手术中放射特异性导管的应用。基于PRISMA 2020指南,通过4个电子数据库进行系统的文献检索。采用ROBINS-I (Risk of bias in non -random Studies of Interventions)工具评估偏倚风险。共纳入11项研究,990例患者使用Armadillo、RIST、Zoom RDL和bmx81导管。Armadillo的靶血管插管失败率明显低于RIST (0.0% vs. 3.04%, P = 0.036)。Zoom RDL导管失败率相对较高,为10.3%。Armadillo导管与RIST导管在手术相关并发症方面无显著差异。犰狳导管无动脉痉挛或出血的报道。RIST导管神经系统并发症发生率为3.2%,经股转换发生率为3.1%,血肿发生率为1.8%。bmx81导管动脉血管痉挛发生率为2.5%,手术相关并发症发生率为5%。Zoom RDL导管与手术相关、经股转换和神经系统并发症的发生率一致,均为6.9%,其他并发症的数据不足。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Radial-specific catheters for neuroendovascular procedures: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Radial-specific catheters for neuroendovascular procedures: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Despite a radial-first approach in many neurointerventions, there are no systematic reviews and meta-analysis which comprehensively assess radial-specific catheter for neuroendovascular procedures. A systematic literature search was conducted through four electronic databases based on PRISMA 2020 guideline. Risk of bias was assessed employing Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. A total of eleven studies with 990 patients using Armadillo, RIST, Zoom RDL, and BMX 81 catheters were included. The Armadillo showed significantly lower failure to catheterize the target vessel (0.0% vs. 3.04%, P = 0.036) than RIST. The Zoom RDL catheter had relatively higher failure rate of 10.3%. There was no significant difference between the Armadillo and RIST catheters in procedure-related complications. There were no reported cases of arterial spasm or hemorrhage for Armadillo catheter. RIST catheter had a 3.2% rate of neurological complications, a 3.1% rate of transfemoral conversion, and a 1.8% rate of hematoma. The BMX 81 catheter had a 2.5% rate of arterial vasospasm and a 5% rate of procedure-related complications. The Zoom RDL catheter had consistent rates of procedure-related, transfemoral conversion, and neurological complications, all at 6.9%, with insufficient data on other complications.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Neurosurgical Review
Neurosurgical Review 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
7.10%
发文量
191
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The goal of Neurosurgical Review is to provide a forum for comprehensive reviews on current issues in neurosurgery. Each issue contains up to three reviews, reflecting all important aspects of one topic (a disease or a surgical approach). Comments by a panel of experts within the same issue complete the topic. By providing comprehensive coverage of one topic per issue, Neurosurgical Review combines the topicality of professional journals with the indepth treatment of a monograph. Original papers of high quality are also welcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信