CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology

, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp 158–163 | Cite as

Response of Balloon-Expandable Endoprosthetic Metallic Stents Subjected to Over-Expansion In Vitro

  • B. J. Montague
  • W. M. Kakimoto
  • A. Arepally
  • M. Razavi
  • M. D. Dake
  • L. V. HofmannEmail author


We attempted to evaluate the in vitro behavior and performance of balloon-expandable endoprosthetic metallic stents subjected to over-expansion (OE). Seventy-two balloon-expandable endoprosthetic stents, representing 22 models from six manufacturers, were over- expanded in vitro. Stents were initially expanded to their maximum manufacturer- recommended diameter and then over-expanded incrementally to their endpoints. Endpoints for OE were either stent disarticulation or an inability to undergo further expansion despite balloon insufflation to maximum burst pressure. Measurements of stent dimensions were recorded at each overexpanded diameter and comparisons were made to manufacturer’s specifications. A total of 288 balloon-driven expansions were performed on 72 stents. Sixteen stents were expanded to large diameters (≥ 16 mm), 20 stents underwent OE of 50% or greater. One model tended to disarticulate after OE greater than 50%. There were five models that had a tendency to disarticulate after minimal OE. Five models were resistant to OE (25% or less OE) but did not disarticulate. Nearly all stents showed some degree of foreshortening with OE, while 36 stents underwent foreshortening of 30% or more. Models that are not recommended for OE include Intrastent, Intrastent DoubleStrut, NIR Royale and Omniflex. Good candidates for OE include Intrastent DoubleStrut LD, Palmaz large, Medtronic Extra Support Biliary Plus and Medtronic Flexible Biliary. Palmaz XL remains the only model available for expansion from 20 to 28 mm in diameter. For the remaining stents, OE is possible, however, caution should be used.


Stent Balloon-expandable Peripheral vascular disease Vessel 


  1. 1.
    Flueckiger, F, Sternthal, H, Klein, GE 1994Strength, elasticity and plasticity of expandable metal stents: In vitro studies with three types of stress.J Vasc Interv Radiol5745750PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Duda, SH, Wiskirchen, J, Tepe, G 2000Physical properties of endovascular stents: An experimental comparison.J Vasc Interv Radiol11645654PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dyet, JF, Watts, WG, Ettles, DF 2000Mechanical properties of metallic stents: How do these properties influence the choice of stent for specific lesions?Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol234754CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dumoulin, C, Cochelin, B 2000Mechanical behavior modelling of balloon-expandable stents.J Biomech3314611470CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ormiston, JA, Dixon, SR, Webster, MWI 2000Stent longitudinal flexibility: A comparison of 13 stent designs before and after balloon expansion.Cathet Cardiol Interv50120124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Timaran, CH, Stevens, SL, Freeman, MB 2001External iliac and common iliac artery angioplasty and stenting in men and women.J Vasc Surg34440446CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Haskal, ZJ, LaBerge, JM, Gordon, RL 1993Response of Wallstents to dilation: Therapeutic implications.J Vasc Interv Radiol5635637Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hehrlein, C, DeVries, JJ, Arab, A 2002Role of the dogbone effect of balloon-expandable stents: Quantitative coronary analysis of DUET and NIR stent implantation introducing a novel indexing system.J Invasive Cardiol145965PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Culp, WC, McCowan, TC, Lieberman, RP 1996Biliary stricures in liver transplant recipients: Treatment with metal stents.Radiology199339346PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. J. Montague
    • 1
  • W. M. Kakimoto
    • 1
  • A. Arepally
    • 2
  • M. Razavi
    • 3
  • M. D. Dake
    • 3
  • L. V. Hofmann
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.The University of San Diego, Department of RadiologySan Diego, California, USA
  2. 2.The Johns Hopkins HospitalDivision of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Baltimore, MarylandUSA
  3. 3.Stanford University, Division of Vascular and Interventional RadiologyStanford, California, USA

Personalised recommendations