ArticleInteractive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery2013
Feasibility of endoscopic transumbilical thoracic sympathectomy in a porcine model.
Article in Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of thoracic sympathetic stimulation on palmar perfusion: a preliminary study in pigs.General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2022Article
- Transumbilical thoracic sympathectomy with an ultrathin flexible endoscope in a series of 38 patients.Surgical endoscopy · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThoracoscopic sympathectomy is an effective treatment for palmar hyperhidrosis. Current methods are associated with risks of chronic neuropathic pain and a visible chest scar. We developed a novel surgical technique for the performance of sympathectomy by embryonic natural orifice transumbilical endoscopic surgery with a flexible endoscope in a porcine model.
methodsTransumbilical flexible endoscopic thoracic sympathectomies were performed in seven farm pigs (three acute and four 4-week survivals). Under general anaesthesia, animals were intubated and mechanically ventilated with a dual lumen endotracheal tube through tracheostomy. A newly developed long transabdominal trocar was placed through the umbilicus. After insertion of a gastroscope through this trocar, a small incision was created on both sides of the diaphragm by a needle-knife. Then the gastroscope was inserted into the thoracic cavity, and the sympathetic chain was identified at the desired thoracic level and ablated. Operation time, safety and feasibility were recorded in all animals.
resultsThe transumbilical thoracic sympathectomies were successfully completed in all pigs with a mean operation time of 66.7 ± 9.4 min. Intraoperative bleeding occurred in one pig during the electrosurgical incision of diaphragm tissue, which was successfully controlled by hot biopsy forceps. No other acute intraoperative complications were observed in any cases. In the acute group, the length of the diaphragm incision ranged from 4 to 5 mm in three pigs. In the survival group, the animals recovered promptly from surgery. In three pigs, a small pneumothorax was found in the postoperative chest X-ray, but all of them were completely resolved with conservative treatment. Autopsy showed all bilateral T3 sympathetic chains were successfully ablated and no evidence of vital structure injury or diaphragmatic hernia.
conclusionsTransumbilical flexible endoscopic thoracic sympathectomy is technically feasible, simple and safe in a porcine model. This technique can be used as a novel experimental platform for studies of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) for intrathoracic surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.