Benchtop evaluation of a double stent retriever thrombectomy technique for acute ischemic stroke treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and purposeA mechanical thrombectomy technique using a double stent retriever approach has been reported for the treatment of patients with acute ischemic stroke. The purpose of this study was to perform a benchtop evaluation of the mechanism of action and efficacy of a double-stent retriever approach compared to a single-stent retriever approach.Materials and methodsIn vitro, mechanical thrombectomy procedures were performed in a vascular phantom reproducing an M1-M2 occlusion with two different clot analog consistencies (soft and hard). We compared the double stent retriever approach to the single stent retriever approach and recorded the recanalization rate, distal embolization, and retrieval forces of each mechanical thrombectomy procedure.ResultsThe double stent retriever approach achieved a higher recanalization rate and lower embolic complications compared to the single stent retriever approach. This seems to stem from two facts: the greater probability of targeting the correct artery with two stents in the case of bifurcation occlusion, and an improved clot capture mechanism using the double stent retriever approach. However, the double stent retriever was associated with an increased initial retrieval force.ConclusionsIn vitro evaluation of the mechanism of action of the double stent retriever provided explanations that appear to support the high efficacy of such an approach in patient cohorts and could help operators when selecting the optimal mechanical thrombectomy strategy in cases of arterial occlusions difficult to treat with a single stent retriever.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".