Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32979105›Full record

SynthesisLangenbeck's archives of surgery2021

Current trends in vena cava reconstructive techniques with major liver resection: a systematic review.

Maria Baimas-George, Christoph Tschuor, Michael Watson, Jesse Sulzer, Patrick Salibi, David Iannitti, John B Martinie, Erin Baker, Pierre-Alain Clavien, Dionisios Vrochides

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Diaphragmatic and pericardial reconstruction using a Gore-TexClinical journal of gastroenterology · 2024
    Article
  2. Effects of different preservation schemes on isolated rat artery.Journal of cellular and molecular medicine · 2023
    Article
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

10 authors.

Maria Baimas-GeorgeDivision of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, Department of General Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, 1025 Morehead Medical Drive; Suite 600, Charlotte, NC, 28204, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6649-4627
Christoph TschuorDivision of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, Department of General Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, 1025 Morehead Medical Drive; Suite 600, Charlotte, NC, 28204, USA.
Michael WatsonDivision of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, Department of General Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, 1025 Morehead Medical Drive; Suite 600, Charlotte, NC, 28204, USA.
Jesse SulzerDivision of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, Department of General Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, 1025 Morehead Medical Drive; Suite 600, Charlotte, NC, 28204, USA.
Patrick SalibiDivision of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, Department of General Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, 1025 Morehead Medical Drive; Suite 600, Charlotte, NC, 28204, USA.
David IannittiDivision of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, Department of General Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, 1025 Morehead Medical Drive; Suite 600, Charlotte, NC, 28204, USA.
John B MartinieDivision of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, Department of General Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, 1025 Morehead Medical Drive; Suite 600, Charlotte, NC, 28204, USA.
Erin BakerDivision of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, Department of General Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, 1025 Morehead Medical Drive; Suite 600, Charlotte, NC, 28204, USA.
Pierre-Alain ClavienDepartment of Surgery & Transplantation, University Hospital of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Dionisios VrochidesDivision of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, Department of General Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, 1025 Morehead Medical Drive; Suite 600, Charlotte, NC, 28204, USA. Dionisios.Vrochides@atriumhealth.org.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeHistorically, invasion of the inferior vena cava (IVC) represented advanced and often unresectable hepatic disease. With surgical and anesthetic innovations, IVC resection and reconstruction have become feasible in selected patients. This review assesses technical variations in reconstructive techniques and post-operative management.

methodsA comprehensive literature search was performed according to PRISMA. Inclusion criteria were (i) peer-reviewed articles in English; (ii) at least three cases; (iii) hepatic IVC resection and reconstruction (January 2015-March 2020). Primary outcomes were reconstructive technique, anti-thrombotic regimen, post-operative IVC patency, and infection. Secondary outcomes included post-operative complications and malignant disease survival.

resultsFourteen articles were included allowing for investigation of 351 individual patients. Analysis demonstrated significant heterogeneity in surgical reconstructive technique, anti-thrombotic management, and post-operative monitoring of patency. There was increased utilization of ex vivo approaches and decreased use of venovenous bypass compared with previously published reviews.

conclusionThis review of literature published between 2015 and 2020 reveals persistent heterogeneity of hepatic IVC reconstructive techniques and peri-operative management. Increased utilization of ex vivo approaches and decreased use of venovenous bypass point towards improved operative techniques, peri-operative management, and anesthesia. In order to gain evidence for consensus on management, a registry would be beneficial.

Indexed as

HepatectomyVena Cava, InferiorHumansLiverHepatic diseaseIVC resectionMalignancyPatencyReconstructionSystematic review

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.