ArticleInterventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences2025
Robotic-assisted carotid artery stenting with R-One
Article in Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PurposeRobotic-assisted carotid artery stenting (CAS) procedures are on the rise and have demonstrated benefits compared to manual intervention. The R-OneTM robotic platform has demonstrated safety and efficacy for percutaneous coronary interventions, but its utility for procedures in the common carotid artery has not been thoroughly studied. This study aims to assess the feasibility and initial safety of the R-OneTM robotic platform for treating patients with carotid artery disease (CAD) presenting with carotid web-diaphragm lesions.MethodsThe prospective CArotid Robotic procedure Evaluation study included patients with CAD suitable for CAS. The primary endpoint was procedure technical success, defined as the absence of any unplanned manual assistance or conversion to manual CAS for procedural completion. Secondary endpoints included the absence of intra-procedural complications, primary operator radiation exposure, patient radiation exposure, procedure time, and contrast volume.ResultsA total of seven patients were enrolled (mean age: 49.57 ± 13.10 years; 5 females). Procedure technical success rate was 85.7% (6/7). The absence of intra-procedural complications rate was 100%. Mean overall procedure time was 41.71 ± 9.83 min, mean robotic procedure time was 15.86 ± 7.60 min, and mean CAS procedure time was 27.14 ± 8.71 min. The average patient radiation exposure dose was 135.50 ± 78.88 mGy. The mean overall procedure contrast volume was 68.14 ± 20.14 mL, and the mean robotic procedure contrast volume was 1.43 ± 3.78 mL.ConclusionCAS procedures using R-OneTM are feasible and safe with a good technical success rate without complications. To confirm these findings, larger multi-center trials with a diverse range of patients are necessary.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.