ReviewBrazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery2021
Hybrid Repair versus Conventional Open Repair Approaches for Aortic Arch Disease: a Comprehensive Review.
Review in Brazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Supra-aortic bypass reconstructions using ring-reinforced 8 mm polytetrafluoroethylene for debranching before thoracic endovascular aortic repair and for atherosclerotic lesions of the subclavian artery.Journal of vascular surgery cases and innovative techniques · 2026Article
- Clinical outcomes of hybrid surgery in the treatment of aortic arch disease: a retrospective study.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Open, Hybrid and Endovascular Management of Aortic Arch Aneurysms: Recent Updates and Future Directions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Neurological complications post aortic arch surgery: a state of art review.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2025Review
- Endovascular Repair of Thoracic Aortic Atresia in Adults: A Narrative Review of a Rare Entity and Emerging Technique.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Successful open three-stage repair of multifocal aortic aneurysms in a 34-year-old.Journal of vascular surgery cases and innovative techniques · 2025Article
- Anesthetic Considerations for Endovascular Repair of the Thoracic Aorta.Seminars in cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia · 2025Review
- Reentry to the Mediastinum When the Ascending Aorta Is Adherent to the Sternum: A Two-Stage Sternotomy Approach.Brazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate whether hybrid repair has supremacy over conventional open repair in aortic arch diseases.
methodsA comprehensive search was undertaken in two major databases (PubMed and MEDLINE) to identify all studies comparing the two surgical techniques in five years, up to December 2018, that met the established criteria in this study. The search returned 310 papers, and 305 were selected after removing duplicates. The abstracts of the remaining articles were assessed, resulting in 15 studies that went to full-text analysis. After application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 8 papers remained for the final revision.
resultsEight studies met the criteria, with the inclusion of 1,837 patients. From a short-term perspective, hybrid repair and conventional open repair had similar outcomes in terms of postoperative mortality and acute neurological events. Hybrid repair was associated with less respiratory complications and risk of new intervention, as well as reduced hospital length of stay. Conventional open repair showed better mid- and long-term outcomes.
conclusionHybrid repair should be used in selected patients, with a high risk or very high-risk profile for conventional surgery. Finally, since most of the current data were obtained from limited to large samples, with narrow follow-up and had great heterogeneity, the best approach to the aortic arch is still variable. Therefore, the decision of the approach should be individualized and evaluated by the whole Heart Team, considering the expertise of the surgical team.
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.