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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |