ReviewLangenbeck's archives of surgery2015
Is clipping the preferable technique to perform sympathicotomy? A retrospective study and review of the literature.
Review in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Influence of sex on the outcomes of uniportal video‑assisted thoracoscopic sympathicotomy for primary palmar hyperhidrosis.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2025Article
- IS THERE NEURAL AND FUNCTIONAL RECOVERY AFTER CLIP REMOVAL IN CERVICAL EXPERIMENTAL SYMPATHECTOMY?Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery · 2021Article
- Does clip removal help for compensatory hyperhidrosis complicating thoracic sympathetic clipping?Clinical autonomic research : official journal of the Clinical Autonomic Research Society · 2019Article
- Compensatory hyperhidrosis after different surgeries at the same sympathetic levels: a meta-analysis.Annals of translational medicine · 2018Article
- Comparisons of the clinical outcomes of thoracoscopic sympathetic surgery for palmar hyperhidrosis: R4 sympathicotomy versus R4 sympathetic clipping versus R3 sympathetic clipping.Journal of thoracic disease · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThoracoscopic sympathetic surgery is nowadays a broadly accepted technique in the treatment of primary hyperhidrosis as well as facial blushing. The objective of this study was to compare the two currently most commonly used methods for thoracic sympathicotomy: transection (ETS) and clipping (ETC.).
methodsThis is a retrospective study on a total of 63 patients, who underwent rib-oriented sympathicotomy, either by transection (n = 36, 57 %) or by clipping (n = 27, 43 %). Moreover, the up-to-date international literature is reviewed concerning which level(s) of the sympathetic trunk should be addressed, depending on the patients underlying condition. Furthermore, the highly controversial topic of reversibility of sympathetic clipping is debated.
resultsOur results confirm that clipping is at least as effective as transection of the sympathetic chain in the treatment of hyperhidrosis and facial blushing. Furthermore, the analysis of all larger studies on unclipping in humans shows a surprisingly high reported reversal rate between 48 and 77 %.
conclusionsDepending on the symptoms of the patient, different levels of the sympathetic chain should be addressed. When a higher rib level such as R2 is approached, which more likely will result in moderate to severe compensatory sweating, clipping should be preferred as it seems that this technique has indeed a potential for reversibility. As demonstrated, this method is at least as effective as an irreversible transection of the sympathetic chain.
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.