SynthesisJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2018
Sutureless technique versus conventional surgery in the primary treatment of total anomalous pulmonary venous connection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk factors for postoperative pulmonary venous obstruction after surgical repair of total anomalous pulmonary venous connection: a systemic review and meta-analysis.Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2022Pooled it
- Sutureless Closure Versus Conventional Technique in the Primary Surgery of Total Anomalous Pulmonary Venous Connection: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Pediatric cardiology · 2022Pooled it
- Total anomalous pulmonary venous connection in 80 patients: Primary sutureless repair and outcomes.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroudA meta-analysis was performed to compare the differences in outcomes between sutureless technique and conventional surgery for primary repair of Total Anomalous Pulmonary Venous Connection(TAPVC).
methodsElectronic databases, including PubMed, EMbase, Medline, CNKI, Wanfang Data and Weipu Data were searched systematically for the literature aimed mainly at comparing the therapeutic effects for primary repair of TAPVC administered by sutureless technique and conventional surgery. Corresponding data sets were extracted and two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality.
resultsSeven studies meeting the inclusion criteria were included, involving a total of 1293 subjects. It was observed that sutureless technique entailed a lower occurrence rate of post-operative Pulmonary Veins Obstruction (PVO) (OR, 0.52 95%CI, 0.32-0.86; P = 0.01) and re-operation due to PVO (OR, 0.28;95%CI, 0.09-0.87; P = 0.03). However, meta-analyses of hospitalization time (WMD, 5.92; 95%CI, - 7.97-19.80; P = 0.40) and post-operative mortality (OR, 0.65; 95%CI, 0.41-1.04; P = 0.07) showed no significant differences between sutureless technique and conventional surgery. Meta-analysis of Cardiopulmonary Bypass (CPB) time and aortic cross-clamp time also showed no significant differences between the two surgical approaches (WMD, 5.07; 95%CI, - 9.29-19.42; P = 0.49); (WMD, 5.73; 95%CI, - 7.76-19.23; P = 0.40), but the result remained inconclusive due to pooling result changes after sensitivity analysis.
conclusionsCompared with conventional surgery, a lower occurrence rate of post-operative PVO and re-operation due to PVO were associated with sutureless technique. Meanwhile, hospitalization time and post-operative mortality were not statistically different between the two surgical approaches. Pooling result of CPB and aortic cross-clamp time between the two groups remained inconclusive.
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.