SynthesisNeurosurgical review2020
Endovascular reconstruction of extracranial traumatic internal carotid artery dissections: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2020. 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.
- Endovascular reconstruction of high cervical and long-segment carotid artery dissections with Leo plus stent.Neuroradiology · 2024Article
- Endovascular treatment of blunt injury of the extracranial internal carotid artery: the prospect and dilemma.International journal of medical sciences · 2021Review
- Damage control in penetrating carotid artery trauma: changing a 100-year paradigm.Colombia medica (Cali, Colombia)Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Extracranial internal carotid artery dissection (ICAD) is a potential source of morbidity and mortality in trauma patients and requires high degree of suspicion for diagnosis after the initial presentation. Occasionally, if standard therapy is contraindicated, endovascular reconstruction is a treatment option. The aim of this systematic review was to report clinical and radiographic outcomes following endovascular repair of ICAD of traumatic and iatrogenic etiology. A comprehensive systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were searched. Twenty-four studies comprising 191 patients (204 lesions) were included; 179 underwent traditional carotid artery stenting (CAS), whereas 12 patients underwent flow diversion with the pipeline embolization device (PED). In total, 75.7% of the CAS group and 66.6% of the PED group presented with ICAD-related symptomatology. Concomitant pseudoaneurysms were identified in 61.9% and 78.5% of lesions in the CAS and PED group, respectively. Adverse event rates among CAS-treated lesions after 30-day follow-up were below 2.2% for stroke, transient ischemic attack, and mortality. During follow-up in the CAS group, there was no incidence of ICAD-related stroke or death and 2.2% of patients underwent a repeat CAS procedure. In the PED group, no patient suffered stroke or death in the reported follow-up. In the PED cohort, there was an adequate occlusion rate and no patient had to be retreated. Endovascular reconstruction of traumatic or iatrogenic ICAD appears safe. This approach demonstrated acceptable short- and long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes in both groups.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30903316What 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.