Because they don't tell you how many fully recovered they are hiding this complete failure by suggesting that ambulation is a good enough outcome.  All this further talking to try to make this sound successful when it is a complete failure.  The only goal is always 100% recovery, that is what stroke research should be measured against.

Association between time to treatment with endovascular reperfusion therapy and outcomes in patients with acute ischemic stroke treated in clinical practice

JAMA — Jahan R, et al. | July 18, 2019

Via a retrospective cohort study of 6,756 subjects with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) from January 2015 to December 2016 in a US nationwide clinical registry, researchers described the correlation of speed of treatment with results among patients with AIS who underwent endovascular-reperfusion therapy. Adverse events were symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) and in-hospital mortality/hospice discharge in 6.7% and in 19.6% of patients, respectively. At discharge, 36.9% and 23.0% were ambulated independently and had functional independence, respectively. Between 30 to 270 minutes vs 271 to 480 minutes, time-outcome relations were nonlinear with steeper slopes in the onset-to-puncture adjusted analysis. Faster onset to puncture in 15-minute increments in the 30- to 270-minute time frame correlated with a greater likelihood of obtaining independent ambulation at discharge, lower in-hospital mortality/hospice discharge, and lower risk of sICH. Including in the 30- to the 120-minute window, a higher likelihood of discharge to home and lower in-hospital mortality/hospice discharge was seen with faster door-to-puncture times for each 15-minute increment. Shorter time to endovascular-reperfusion therapy was significantly correlated with better outcomes in cases with AIS due to large vessel occlusion treated in routine clinical practice.

Read the full article on JAMA