ArticleAsian journal of neurosurgery
Carotid Endarterectomy: The Need for
Article in Asian journal of neurosurgery. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Results of carotid endarterectomy with the use of temporary shunts with reduced retrograde pressure in the internal carotid artery - analysis of the multicenter Russian register.Indian journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCarotid endarterectomy (CEA) is the surgical excision of the atherosclerotic plaque in patients with severe carotid artery stenosis. It is a common surgical technique required by neurosurgeons that should be mastered. In this article, we provide an outline of the technique and multimodality adjuncts involved in performing an effective CEA with a better surgical outcome. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe have operated a total of 14 patients in our institute from 2015 to 2018. The male to female ratio is 13:1. Four (28.5%) patients were symptomatic and 10 (71.5%) were asymptomatic; with an average percentage of carotid stenosis being 81.2% in symptomatic and 76.6% in asymptomatic patients. Two patients have undergone bilateral CEA. Intraoperative monitoring was done with continuous
resultsOf the 14 patients with 16 CEA procedures, continuous INVOS monitoring was used in 12 CEA procedures. Of the 12 cases, only 5 (41.6%) needed a shunt. Furui's shunt was not used in 7 (58.3%) CEA procedures, where there were no changes in the intraoperative CO and these patients had an uneventful postoperative period. INVOS monitoring not only reduced the use of routine intraoperative shunt but also reduced the total surgical time and thus aided in preventing neurological complications.
conclusionCEA should be strongly considered for symptomatic patients with >70% of carotid stenosis and in patients with 50%-69% stenosis if no other etiological basis for the ischemic symptoms can be identified. Continuous INVOS monitoring is mandatory for the decision of the use of intraoperative shunt, which reduces the perioperative morbidity and mortality significantly.
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.