Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30903316›Full record

SynthesisNeurosurgical review2020

Endovascular reconstruction of extracranial traumatic internal carotid artery dissections: a systematic review.

Pavlos Texakalidis, Theofilos Karasavvidis, Stefanos Giannopoulos, Andreas Tzoumas, Nektarios Charisis, Pascal Jabbour, Theofilos Machinis, Leonardo Rangel-Castilla, John Reavey-Cantwell

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Pavlos TexakalidisDepartment of Neurosurgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA. pavlostex.med@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8715-6651
Theofilos KarasavvidisMedical School Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Stefanos Giannopoulos251 HAF and VA Hospital, Athens, Greece.
Andreas TzoumasMedical School Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Nektarios CharisisDepartment of Surgery, Stony Brook University Stony Brook, NY, USA.
Pascal JabbourDepartment of Neurosurgery, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Theofilos MachinisDepartment of Neurosurgery, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA.
Leonardo Rangel-CastillaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
John Reavey-CantwellDepartment of Neurosurgery, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Carotid Artery InjuriesCarotid Artery, Internal, DissectionEndovascular ProceduresHumansPatient SafetyPlastic Surgery ProceduresStentsTreatment OutcomeCarotid dissectionFlow diversionIatrogenicStentTrauma

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.