ArticleInternational journal of clinical and experimental medicine2015
Therapeutic effects and complications of simplified pericardial devascularization for patients with portal hypertension.
Article in International journal of clinical and experimental medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Risk Factors of Portal Vein Thrombosis after Devascularization Treatment in Patients with Liver Cirrhosis: A Nested Case-Control Study.BioMed research international · 2020Article
- Postoperative survival analysis and prognostic nomogram model for patients with portal hypertension.World journal of gastroenterology · 2018Article
- Comparison of simplified and traditional pericardial devascularisation combined with splenectomy for the treatment of portal hypertension.World journal of clinical cases · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the therapeutic effects and complications of simplified pericardial devascularization for patients with portal hypertension.
methodsBy means of prospective study, 212 patients who underwent simplified pericardial devascularization (Group A) and 309 patients who underwent traditional pericardial devascularization (Group B) were followed up from 2003' to 2011'. Results were performed with the general condition of the patients and the incidence of complications to assess the value of the two operating methods.
resultsThe operating time was 1.0-3.83 hours (mean 1.94 ± 0.32 hours) in Group A versus 1.67-4.50 hours (mean 2.86 ± 0.40 hours) in Group B. The amount of bleeding, postoperative hospital stay and hospitalization expenses were 110-500 ml (mean 224.81 ± 78.44 ml), 7-22 days (mean 10.41 ± 4.01 days) and 15700-27500 yuan with an average of 19300 ± 1600 yuan in Group A and 200-700 ml (mean 423.50 ± 85.19 ml), 9-32 days (mean 14.76 ± 4.52 days) and 18700-44500 yuan with an average of 23400 ± 2200 yuan in Group B. In September 2012', successful follow-up was completed for 438 patients, of which, 181 underwent the simplified devascularization with 31 patients lost (follow-up rate 85.4%). Meanwhile, 257 patients in Group B were followed up completely and 52 patients were lost (follow-up rate 83.2%). The follow-up time ranged from 1 to 9.5 years and the average time was 5.03 ± 2.13 years. The mortality, rebleeding rate, rate of hepatic encephalopathy, rate of ascites and the incidence of gastric fistula and (or) esophageal fistula were 6.1%, 6.1%, 1.7%, 8.3% and 0 in Group A versus 14.0%, 15.2%, 4.3%, 17.7% and 3.1% in Group B.
conclusionsThe final results suggested that simplified pericardial devascularization performed more effectively and conveniently than the traditional method, depending on the mitigated operative wound and the shortened operation time. We concluded that simplified pericardial devascularization was better in treatment of portal hypertension compared than the traditional method.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26550364PMC4613049What 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.