O Krischek, E Miloslavski, S Fischer, S Shrivastava, H Henkes
{"title":"自扩式颅内支架的功能和物理特性比较[Neuroform3, Wingspan, Solitaire, Leo+， Enterprise]。","authors":"O Krischek, E Miloslavski, S Fischer, S Shrivastava, H Henkes","doi":"10.1055/s-0031-1271681","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>5 self-expanding intracranial stents Neuroform (N), Wingspan (W), Solitaire (S), Leo(+) (L), and Enterprise (E) were subjected to an in vitro examination and comparison of their physical features and functional properties in order to better understand the clinical advantages and potential limitations of each device.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>The following features were examined for each stent: visual appearance, radial strength, wall apposition, bending stiffness, gator backing, kink resistance, ovalization, vessel wall coverage, cell size, ease of delivery.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Given are rankings for the 5 stents: radial force at 50% oversizing: L<N<E<S<W; radial force at 15% oversizing L<E<S<N<W; wall apposition: E<N=W<S; bending stiffness: N<L<W<S<E; gator backing: N and W only; kink resistance: N=W<E<S<L; ovalization: W<L<S<N<E; vessel wall coverage: S<E<N<W<L; cell size: L<W<E<N<S; ease of delivery: W<N<L<E<S. A comparative analysis of the in vitro test results with the clinical experience of the authors is presented in this paper.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The 5 stents have fundamentally different features and there is no stent that is superior in all tested aspects. The selection in an individual treatment should be based on clinical and technical requirements.</p>","PeriodicalId":49808,"journal":{"name":"Minimally Invasive Neurosurgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1055/s-0031-1271681","citationCount":"165","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comparison of functional and physical properties of self-expanding intracranial stents [Neuroform3, Wingspan, Solitaire, Leo+, Enterprise].\",\"authors\":\"O Krischek, E Miloslavski, S Fischer, S Shrivastava, H Henkes\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/s-0031-1271681\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>5 self-expanding intracranial stents Neuroform (N), Wingspan (W), Solitaire (S), Leo(+) (L), and Enterprise (E) were subjected to an in vitro examination and comparison of their physical features and functional properties in order to better understand the clinical advantages and potential limitations of each device.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>The following features were examined for each stent: visual appearance, radial strength, wall apposition, bending stiffness, gator backing, kink resistance, ovalization, vessel wall coverage, cell size, ease of delivery.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Given are rankings for the 5 stents: radial force at 50% oversizing: L<N<E<S<W; radial force at 15% oversizing L<E<S<N<W; wall apposition: E<N=W<S; bending stiffness: N<L<W<S<E; gator backing: N and W only; kink resistance: N=W<E<S<L; ovalization: W<L<S<N<E; vessel wall coverage: S<E<N<W<L; cell size: L<W<E<N<S; ease of delivery: W<N<L<E<S. A comparative analysis of the in vitro test results with the clinical experience of the authors is presented in this paper.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The 5 stents have fundamentally different features and there is no stent that is superior in all tested aspects. The selection in an individual treatment should be based on clinical and technical requirements.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49808,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Minimally Invasive Neurosurgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1055/s-0031-1271681\",\"citationCount\":\"165\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Minimally Invasive Neurosurgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0031-1271681\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2011/4/19 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minimally Invasive Neurosurgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0031-1271681","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2011/4/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
A comparison of functional and physical properties of self-expanding intracranial stents [Neuroform3, Wingspan, Solitaire, Leo+, Enterprise].
Purpose: 5 self-expanding intracranial stents Neuroform (N), Wingspan (W), Solitaire (S), Leo(+) (L), and Enterprise (E) were subjected to an in vitro examination and comparison of their physical features and functional properties in order to better understand the clinical advantages and potential limitations of each device.
Material and methods: The following features were examined for each stent: visual appearance, radial strength, wall apposition, bending stiffness, gator backing, kink resistance, ovalization, vessel wall coverage, cell size, ease of delivery.
Results: Given are rankings for the 5 stents: radial force at 50% oversizing: L
Conclusion: The 5 stents have fundamentally different features and there is no stent that is superior in all tested aspects. The selection in an individual treatment should be based on clinical and technical requirements.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
