Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Minim Invasive Neurosurg. 2011 Feb;54(1):21-8. doi: 10.1055/s-0031-1271681. Epub 2011 Apr 19.

A comparison of functional and physical properties of self-expanding intracranial stents [Neuroform3, Wingspan, Solitaire, Leo+, Enterprise].

Author information

1
Klinik für Neuroradiologie, Klinikum Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany.

Abstract

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<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.

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.

PMID:
21506064
DOI:
10.1055/s-0031-1271681
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free full text
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Georg Thieme Verlag Stuttgart, New York
    Loading ...
    Support Center