@article{KrausHackenbergShehataDieleretal.2022,
  author    = {Kraus, Fabian and Hackenberg, Stephan and Shehata-Dieler, Wafaa and Hagen, Rudolf},
  title     = {High-sensitivity FEES\(^{®}\) with the professional image enhancement technology "PIET"},
  series = {European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology},
  volume    = {279},
  journal   = {European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology},
  number    = {1},
  issn      = {1434-4726},
  doi       = {10.1007/s00405-021-07067-y},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-266822},
  pages     = {293-298},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Purpose Flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES\(^{®}\)) is a standard diagnostic tool in dysphagia. The combination of FEES® and narrow band light (narrow band imaging; NBI) provides a more precise and detailed investigation method. So far, this technique could only be performed with the NBI illumination. The new version of the "professional image enhancement technique" (PIET) provides another image enhancing system. This study investigates the eligibility of PIET in the FEES\(^{®}\) procedure. Methods Both techniques, NBI and PIET, were compared using a target system. Furthermore, the image enhancement during FEES\(^{®}\) was performed and recorded with the two systems during daily routine. Results Performing an image enhancement during FEES\(^{®}\) is possible with both systems PIET and NBI. On the target system, the contrast of the PIET showed a brighter and a more detailed picture. In dysphagia patients, no difference between PIET and NBI was detected. Conclusion PIET proved to be non-inferior to NBI during image enhancement FEES\(^{®}\). So far, image enhancement FEES\(^{®}\) was exclusively connected to NBI. With the PIET system, an alternative endoscopy technology is available for certain indications.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{HerzbergDornTrummetal.2022,
  author    = {Herzberg, Moriz and Dorn, Franziska and Trumm, Christoph and Kellert, Lars and Tiedt, Steffen and Feil, Katharina and K{\"u}pper, Clemens and Wollenweber, Frank and Liebig, Thomas and Zimmermann, Hanna},
  title     = {Middle cerebral artery M2 thrombectomy: safety and technical considerations in the German Stroke Registry (GSR)},
  series = {Journal of Clinical Medicine},
  volume    = {11},
  journal   = {Journal of Clinical Medicine},
  number    = {15},
  issn      = {2077-0383},
  doi       = {10.3390/jcm11154619},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-286052},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {There is ongoing debate concerning the safety and efficacy of various mechanical thrombectomy (MT) approaches for M2 occlusions. We compared these for MT in M2 versus M1 occlusions. Subgroup analyses of different technical approaches within the M2 MT cohort were also performed. Patients were included from the German Stroke Registry (GSR), a multicenter registry of consecutive MT patients. Primary outcomes were reperfusion success events. Secondary outcomes were early clinical improvement (improvement in NIHSS score > 4) and independent survival at 90 days (mRS 0-2). Out of 3804 patients, 2689 presented with M1 (71\%) and 1115 with isolated M2 occlusions (29\%). The mean age was 76 (CI 65-82) and 77 (CI 66-83) years, respectively. Except for baseline NIHSS (15 (CI 10-18) vs. 11 (CI 6-16), p < 0.001) and ASPECTS (9 (CI 7-10) vs. 9 (CI 8-10, p < 0.001), baseline demographics were balanced. Apart from a more frequent use of dedicated small vessel stent retrievers (svSR) in M2 (17.4\% vs. 3.0; p < 0.001), intraprocedural aspects were balanced. There was no difference in ICH at 24 h (11\%; p = 1.0), adverse events (14.4\% vs. 18.1\%; p = 0.63), clinical improvement (62.5\% vs. 61.4 \%; p = 0.57), mortality (26.9\% vs. 22.9\%; p = 0.23). In M2 MT, conventional stent retriever (cSR) achieved higher rates of mTICI3 (54.0\% vs. 37.7-42.0\%; p < 0.001), requiring more MT-maneuvers (7, CI 2-8) vs. 2 (CI 2-7)/(CI 2-2); p < 0.001) and without impact on efficacy and outcome. Real-life MT in M2 can be performed with equal safety and efficacy as in M1 occlusions. Different recanalization techniques including the use of svSR did not result in significant differences regarding safety, efficacy and outcome.},
  language  = {en}
}