ArticleNeurologia medico-chirurgica2026
Comparison of Exoscopic and Microscopic Carotid Endarterectomy for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis: A Retrospective Study.
Article in Neurologia medico-chirurgica, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Exoscopic surgery provides superior ergonomics compared with conventional microscopic surgery. This retrospective study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes between exoscopic and conventional microscopic carotid endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid stenosis. We retrospectively analyzed 23 consecutive microscopic carotid endarterectomy cases between March 2012 and November 2018 and 21 consecutive exoscopic carotid endarterectomy cases between December 2018 and August 2024. Patient demographics, lesion characteristics, operative parameters, and postoperative outcomes were compared between the groups. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the microscopic and exoscopic carotid endarterectomy groups. The mean indocyanine green volume was significantly lower in the exoscopic (2 ± 1 mL) vs. microscopic carotid endarterectomy groups (6 ± 2 mL) (p < 0.0001). Similarly, the mean skin incision length was shorter in the exoscopic vs. microscopic group (74 ± 10 mm vs. 90 ± 18 cm, respectively; p = 0.0016). The microsurgical time was significantly shorter in the exoscopic vs. microscopic groups (157 ± 63 min vs. 219 ± 97 min, respectively; p = 0.04). There were no significant differences in safety or clinical outcomes between the 2 groups. Exoscopic carotid endarterectomy demonstrated safety and clinical outcomes comparable to those of microscopic carotid endarterectomy while offering certain benefits associated with advances in equipment and surgical technology.
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.