ArticleTurkish journal of medical sciences2019
Comparison of venous repair results using either arterial or vein grafts in a crush-avulsion injury model
Article in Turkish journal of medical sciences, 2019. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Digital replantation/revascularization: predictive factors to microsurgery success-a single-center study.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2021Observational
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/aim: Venous insufficiency after replantation or revascularization is one of the most common causes of limb loss in either the short or the long term. The aim of this study was to evaluate the results of a new technique to overcome venous insufficiency. Materials and Methods: A crush-avulsion type of injury was formed in the femoral veins of rats of 3 separate groups. In the control group, primary repair was applied to the damaged veins and the remaining 2 groups were repaired with either an arterial graft or a vein graft. The success rates of anastomosis were then compared. Results: In the control group the patency rate was 25% in the 2nd hour, 12.5% on the 2nd day, and 12.5% on the 10th day. The patency rate in the vein group was 87.5% in the 2nd hour, 50% on the 2nd day, and 37.5% on the 10th day, whereas the patency rates in the artery group were 100% in the 2nd hour, 87.5% on the 2nd day, and 75% on the 10th day. Conclusion: Microsurgery requires experience and patience. It can be considered that the use of arterial grafts for venous repair in replantation after crush-avulsion type amputations can increase the success rate of replantation.
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.