Jump to comment:

• Revisionist History
  Colin P. Derdeyn
  Published on: 13 April 2016

• Published on: 13 April 2016

  Revisionist History

  • Colin P. Derdeyn, MD

  The reply from Perez et al to my letter of March 2012 is misleading and wrong in two important regards.1 First, they state that their report of the use of the solitaire stent for thrombectomy was just a case report, "nothing else". 2 This is not true. In fact, they explicitly use this report, both in the abstract and conclusion to lay claim for developing the stentreiever concept for thrombectomy: "This was the first...

  Show More

  The reply from Perez et al to my letter of March 2012 is misleading and wrong in two important regards.1 First, they state that their report of the use of the solitaire stent for thrombectomy was just a case report, "nothing else". 2 This is not true. In fact, they explicitly use this report, both in the abstract and conclusion to lay claim for developing the stentreiever concept for thrombectomy: "This was the first .. use of the Solitaire stent for this purpose and the ignition spark for the development of a whole new generation of devices". In addition, this report was titled a "Historical Vignette". This report was written to take credit for the development of stentreivers for acute stroke. To state, as they do in their response to my letter, that their paper makes no claims is clearly disingenuous.

  Second, they dismiss the idea that the prior publication by Kelly et al -- reporting the use of an Enterprise stent (Codman Neurovascular, Rayhnam, MA) as a temporary endovascular bypass to achieve successful revascularization in a patient with an acute ischemic stroke and large vessel occlusion -- had any influence on their work. This claim is disingenuous as well. In their response, they state that " ... temporary bypass might have been a local and ephemeral phenomenon; however it did not cause to much commotion, at least in Europe." However, the technique of stent-retrieval, or any kind of temporary stenting for acute stroke is, in fact, part and parcel of "temporary endovascular bypass". The best evidence of this is that the authors presented their own original experience with the Solitaire at the 2010 International Stroke Conference in an abstract entitled "Temporary Endovascular Bypass for the treatment of ischemic stroke: Experience After 50 Patients". Clearly their work with the Solitaire stent in acute stroke was influenced by this prior report.

  In summary, despite their claims, the concept of temporary stenting for acute stroke treatment preceded the authors' 2008 case. In their Historical Vignette and subsequent response to my prior letter, the authors are attempting to rewrite history. They do deserve credit for taking this concept and rapidly moving it forward in clinical practice, however. References: 1. Re: Perez et al 'Intracranial thrombectomy using the Solitaire stent: a historical vignette'. Derdeyn CP. J Neurointerv Surg. 2012 Mar;4(2):153-4; Author Response 154 2. Intracranial thrombectomy using the Solitaire stent: a historical vignette. P?rez MA, Miloslavski E, Fischer S, B?zner H, Henkes H. J Neurointerv Surg. 2011 Dec 14. 3. Kelly ME, Furlan AJ, Fiorella D. Recanalization of an acute middle cerebral artery occlusion using a self-expanding, reconstrainable, intracranial microstent as a temporary endovascular bypass. Stroke 2008;39:1770-3. 4. Liebig T, Lockau H, Stehle S, Dorn F, Prothmann S, Henkes HH. Temporary Endovascular Bypass in Acute Stroke: Experience After 50 Patients. Stroke 2010 Vol 41,1:e259-260.

  Conflict of Interest:

  None declared

  Show Less

  Conflict of Interest:
  None declared.

  • Back to top