Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 3 of 3 items for

  • Author or Editor: Yunfeng Zhang x
Clear All Modify Search
Restricted access

Jie Cao, Hang Lin, Min Lin, Kaifu Ke, Yunfeng Zhang, Yong Zhang, Weihong Zheng, Xingyu Chen, Wei Wang, Meng Zhang, Jinggang Xuan, Ya Peng and for the REDIRECT Trial Investigators

OBJECTIVE

The RECO flow restoration (FR) device is a new stent retriever designed for rapid flow restoration in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) caused by large vessel occlusion (LVO). Here, the authors compared the efficacy and safety of the RECO device with the predicate Solitaire FR stent retriever.

METHODS

The RECO Flow Restoration Device Versus Solitaire FR With the Intention for Thrombectomy Study (REDIRECT) was a multicenter, prospective, open randomized controlled trial. Patients with acute LVO at 7 Chinese stroke centers participated in the study. The primary efficacy endpoint was defined as a modified thrombolysis in cerebral infarction (mTICI) reperfusion grade ≥ 2 within three passes. The primary safety endpoint comprised any serious adverse device effect, symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH), and any serious adverse event (SAE; defined as cerebral palsy or death) within 24 hours after the procedure. The secondary efficacy endpoints consisted of functional independence (modified Rankin Scale score 0–2), procedure duration, and 90-day all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

Between January 2014 and August 2016, 67 patients were randomly allocated to the RECO group and 69 patients to the Solitaire FR group. The primary efficacy endpoint (mTICI grade ≥ 2 within three passes) was similar in the two treatment groups (91% vs 87%, respectively, p = 0.5861), and the rate of reperfusion with an mTICI grade 2b/3 was 87% versus 75% (p = 0.1272). There were no serious adverse device effects in any patient. The rates of sICH (1.5% vs 7.2%, p = 0.1027) and SAEs (6.0% vs 1.4%, p = 0.2050) within 24 hours after the procedure were similar in the two treatment groups. There was no significant difference in the rate of functional independence (63% vs 46%, p = 0.0609) or 90-day all-cause mortality (13% vs 23%, p = 0.1848) or in procedure duration (85.39 ± 47.01 vs 89.94 ± 53.34 minutes, p = 0.5986) between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The RECO stent retriever is effective and safe as a mechanical thrombectomy device for AIS due to LVO.

Clinical trial registration no.: NCT01983644 (clinicaltrials.gov)

Restricted access

Xiaoguang Han, Wei Tian, Yajun Liu, Bo Liu, Da He, Yuqing Sun, Xiao Han, Mingxing Fan, Jingwei Zhao, Yunfeng Xu and Qi Zhang

OBJECTIVE

The object of this study was to compare the safety and accuracy of pedicle screw placement using the TiRobot system versus conventional fluoroscopy in thoracolumbar spinal surgery.

METHODS

Patients with degenerative or traumatic thoracolumbar spinal disorders requiring spinal instrumentation were randomly assigned to either the TiRobot-assisted group (RG) or the freehand fluoroscopy-assisted group (FG) at a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome measure was the accuracy of screw placement according to the Gertzbein-Robbins scale; grades A and B (pedicle breach < 2 mm) were considered clinically acceptable. In the RG, discrepancies between the planned and actual screw placements were measured by merging postoperative CT images with the trajectory planning images. Secondary outcome parameters included proximal facet joint violation, duration of surgery, intraoperative blood loss, conversion to freehand approach in the RG, postoperative hospital stay, and radiation exposure.

RESULTS

A total of 1116 pedicle screws were implanted in 234 patients (119 in the FG, and 115 in the RG). In the RG, 95.3% of the screws were perfectly positioned (grade A); the remaining screws were graded B (3.4%), C (0.9%), and D (0.4%). In the FG, 86.1% screws were perfectly positioned (grade A); the remaining screws were graded B (7.4%), C (4.6%), D (1.4%), and E (0.5%). The proportion of clinically acceptable screws was significantly greater in the RG than in the FG (p < 0.01). In the RG, the mean deviation was 1.5 ± 0.8 mm for each screw. The most common direction of screw deviation was lateral in the RG and medial in the FG. Two misplaced screws in the FG required revision surgery, whereas no revision was required in the RG. None of the screws in the RG violated the proximal facet joint, whereas 12 screws (2.1%) in the FG violated the proximal facet joint (p < 0.01). The RG had significantly less blood loss (186.0 ± 255.3 ml) than the FG (217.0 ± 174.3 ml; p < 0.05). There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of surgical time and postoperative hospital stay. The mean cumulative radiation time was 81.5 ± 38.6 seconds in the RG and 71.5 ± 44.2 seconds in the FG (p = 0.07). Surgeon radiation exposure was significantly less in the RG (21.7 ± 11.5 μSv) than in the FG (70.5 ± 42.0 μSv; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

TiRobot-guided pedicle screw placement is safe and useful in thoracolumbar spinal surgery.

Clinical trial registration no.: NCT02890043 (clinicaltrials.gov)