Cargando…

Support and guide performance comparison of balloon guide catheters

BACKGROUND: Several types of balloon guide catheters (BGCs) are used in mechanical thrombus retrieval. However, direct comparisons of their supporting and guiding performance have not been reported. We compared the supporting and guiding performance of the Branchor, Flowgate, and Optimo BGCs using a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Matsumoto, Takashi, Takeuchi, Masataka, Uyama, Atsushi, Konishi, Yoshifumi, Iwabuchi, Satoshi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Scientific Scholar 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9699835/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36447862
http://dx.doi.org/10.25259/SNI_749_2022
_version_ 1784839171753377792
author Matsumoto, Takashi
Takeuchi, Masataka
Uyama, Atsushi
Konishi, Yoshifumi
Iwabuchi, Satoshi
author_facet Matsumoto, Takashi
Takeuchi, Masataka
Uyama, Atsushi
Konishi, Yoshifumi
Iwabuchi, Satoshi
author_sort Matsumoto, Takashi
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Several types of balloon guide catheters (BGCs) are used in mechanical thrombus retrieval. However, direct comparisons of their supporting and guiding performance have not been reported. We compared the supporting and guiding performance of the Branchor, Flowgate, and Optimo BGCs using a type 3 aorta artificial vascular model. METHODS: An inner catheter was pushed into the artificial vascular model using a linear actuator for the supporting performance evaluation. A previously placed BGC in the internal carotid artery was then intentionally caused to slip. Supporting performance was evaluated by measuring the distance the BGC slipped and generated maximum resistance during Inner catheter insertion. For the guiding performance experiment, a linear actuator was used to guide the BGC into the internal carotid artery of the artificial vessel model. The guiding performance was evaluated by measuring the distance reached by the BGC, maximum resistance generated during insertion of the guiding catheter, and distance the inner catheter slipped. Each experiment was replicated 5 times. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were observed in the results of the five supporting performance experiments. However, the results of the first and second experiments suggested that the Optimo offers better supporting performance. In the guiding performance experiment, significant differences were observed, suggesting that the Branchor and Flowgate have superior guiding performance in comparison with the Optimo. CONCLUSION: The Optimo offered superior supporting performance, while the Branchor and Flowgate showed better guiding performance than the Optimo.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9699835
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Scientific Scholar
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-96998352022-11-28 Support and guide performance comparison of balloon guide catheters Matsumoto, Takashi Takeuchi, Masataka Uyama, Atsushi Konishi, Yoshifumi Iwabuchi, Satoshi Surg Neurol Int Original Article BACKGROUND: Several types of balloon guide catheters (BGCs) are used in mechanical thrombus retrieval. However, direct comparisons of their supporting and guiding performance have not been reported. We compared the supporting and guiding performance of the Branchor, Flowgate, and Optimo BGCs using a type 3 aorta artificial vascular model. METHODS: An inner catheter was pushed into the artificial vascular model using a linear actuator for the supporting performance evaluation. A previously placed BGC in the internal carotid artery was then intentionally caused to slip. Supporting performance was evaluated by measuring the distance the BGC slipped and generated maximum resistance during Inner catheter insertion. For the guiding performance experiment, a linear actuator was used to guide the BGC into the internal carotid artery of the artificial vessel model. The guiding performance was evaluated by measuring the distance reached by the BGC, maximum resistance generated during insertion of the guiding catheter, and distance the inner catheter slipped. Each experiment was replicated 5 times. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were observed in the results of the five supporting performance experiments. However, the results of the first and second experiments suggested that the Optimo offers better supporting performance. In the guiding performance experiment, significant differences were observed, suggesting that the Branchor and Flowgate have superior guiding performance in comparison with the Optimo. CONCLUSION: The Optimo offered superior supporting performance, while the Branchor and Flowgate showed better guiding performance than the Optimo. Scientific Scholar 2022-10-28 /pmc/articles/PMC9699835/ /pubmed/36447862 http://dx.doi.org/10.25259/SNI_749_2022 Text en Copyright: © 2022 Surgical Neurology International https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, transform, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Matsumoto, Takashi
Takeuchi, Masataka
Uyama, Atsushi
Konishi, Yoshifumi
Iwabuchi, Satoshi
Support and guide performance comparison of balloon guide catheters
title Support and guide performance comparison of balloon guide catheters
title_full Support and guide performance comparison of balloon guide catheters
title_fullStr Support and guide performance comparison of balloon guide catheters
title_full_unstemmed Support and guide performance comparison of balloon guide catheters
title_short Support and guide performance comparison of balloon guide catheters
title_sort support and guide performance comparison of balloon guide catheters
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9699835/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36447862
http://dx.doi.org/10.25259/SNI_749_2022
work_keys_str_mv AT matsumototakashi supportandguideperformancecomparisonofballoonguidecatheters
AT takeuchimasataka supportandguideperformancecomparisonofballoonguidecatheters
AT uyamaatsushi supportandguideperformancecomparisonofballoonguidecatheters
AT konishiyoshifumi supportandguideperformancecomparisonofballoonguidecatheters
AT iwabuchisatoshi supportandguideperformancecomparisonofballoonguidecatheters