ArticleComparative medicine2017
Horner Syndrome in 2 Pigs (
Article in Comparative medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Novel Porcine Model of Bilateral Hindlimb Bypass Graft Surgery Integrating Transit Time Flowmetry.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The term Horner syndrome refers to the clinical presentation of oculosympathoparesis, comprising miosis, ptosis, and facial anhydrosis. To date, there are 2 reports of postoperative Horner syndrome in pigs. In this species the cervical sympathetic chain and cranial cervical sympathetic ganglion are consistently within the carotid artery sheath. This case study describes the sudden onset of Horner syndrome in 2 pigs, from a study cohort of 8, after the placement of a vascular graft between the carotid artery and external jugular vein. Anesthesia and surgery was uneventful in all the pigs in the study, but 2 pigs demonstrated clinical signs including ptosis, enophthalmos and prolapse of the nictitating membrane immediately after recovery from anesthesia. Horner syndrome was diagnosed in light of the clinical signs. These clinical signs persisted throughout the 2-mo study period and did not appear to improve or deteriorate in that time. Gross examination of the surgery site at the end of the study did not reveal an obvious lesion in the carotid artery sheath. The risk of Horner syndrome after surgery involving the carotid artery in pigs had not been reported prior to this study. Without specific measures to protect the cervical sympathetic ganglion during surgery, the incidence of postoperative Horner syndrome was 25% in our population of pigs. Although the welfare implications of this syndrome are minimal, concerted effort to avoid intraoperative damage to the cervical ganglion is essential for future work.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29212584PMC5713167W2788052609What 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.