Routine manual thrombectomy during primary percutaneous coronary intervention might be intuitively justified. While older registers reported contradictory results, interventional cardiologists remained interested in using such devices during the mechanical treatment of acute myocardial infarction. The first studies were congruent to demonstrate a significant relationship between thromboaspiration and significant improvement of ST-segment elevation, lower distal embolization, despite TAPAS was the only to significantly reduce the mortality. Later studies were unable to confirm these promising data, avoiding routine manual thrombectomy prior to primary angioplasty to decrease cardiovascular mortality, recurrent myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock or severe heart failure. Moreover, thrombectomy was associated with an increased rate of stroke. Should thrombectomy therefore be conclusively overlooked? It is presumably required to define which patient is eligible for thrombectomy, to define how to perfectly perform manual thrombectomy, to specify how to gently move towards the thrombus, the optimal pharmacological environment, the number of aspirations and the criterion to stop or to repeat aspiration. Indeed, while thrombectomy is nowadays scientifically downgraded, it remains of potential interest in numerous interventional cardiologists. Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier SAS.