Comparative efficacy, safety, and DMSO compatibility of detachable vs. non-detachable tip microcatheters in neurointerventional procedures: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 6, 2025
Magnetically-Assisted Remote Controlled Microcatheter Tip Deflection under Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Published on: April 4, 2013
Atakan Orscelik1, Basel Musmar2, Esref Alperen Bayraktar3
1Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, 400 Parnassus Ave, 8th Floor, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA.
Background:
The evolution of embolic agents necessitates the use of microcatheters compatible with dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), with detachable tip microcatheters (DTMs) emerging as a significant innovation aimed at reducing the risk of catheter entrapment in embolization procedures. This study aims to compare the efficacy, safety, and DMSO compatibility of DTMs with non-detachable tip microcatheters (Non-DTMs) in the context of embolization treatments for neurovascular diseases.
Method:
Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic literature search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science databases until February 25, 2024. Primary outcomes included technical success and microcatheter-related complications, with a meta-analysis performed using a random-effects model to calculate proportions and odds ratios (OR) with 95 % confidence intervals (Cl).
Results:
Forty-five studies involving 2185 patients and 3758 catheters (995 DTMs and 2763 Non-DTMs) were analyzed. Our analysis revealed that DTMs were associated with comparable rates of technical success (98.3 % vs. 97.6 %, p = 0.68), favorable outcomes (93.9 % vs. 93.6 %, p = 0.89), and microcatheter-related complications compared to Non-DTMs. Specifically, DTMs showed a 0.0 % rate of microcatheter entrapment and hemorrhagic complications. Intended detachment was achieved in 41.7 % (95 % CI = 27.02-57.98) of cases and premature detachment was rare (0.1 %; 95 % %CI = 0.00-1.23). In the analysis of comparative studies, microcatheter-related complications did not defer between DTM and Non-DTM groups.
Conclusion:
Our study demonstrates the safety and efficacy of DTMs in embolization treatments, emphasizing their compatibility with DMSO-based embolic agents and their potential to enhance patient outcomes in neurointerventional procedures. Future research should focus on well-designed, larger, prospective, comparative multi-center studies to strengthen the evidence base and further optimize the use of DTMs in endovascular interventions.
