ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2021
Application of prosthesis eversion method for ascending aorta replacement guarantees better clinical outcomes of type A acute aortic dissection surgery.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk factors of prolonged mechanical ventilation after acute type A aortic dissection surgery: a single-center retrospective study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Predictors and outcomes of postoperative tracheostomy in patients undergoing acute type A aortic dissection surgery.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe advantages of prosthesis eversion method in patients diagnosed with Stanford type A acute aortic dissection (AAD) undergoing ascending aorta replacement (AAR) is unknown. This research is designed to explore it.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed the data of a total of 283 patients diagnosed with type A aortic dissection that underwent surgery in Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University from March, 2006 to April, 2020. Eighty-eight patients underwent surgical repair with traditional continuous suture technique, and 195 patients received prosthesis eversion. Baseline data, intra-operative data and early-stage clinical results were collected and statistically analyzed.
resultsBaseline data were similar except for age, incidence of hyperlipidemia and taking ACEI/ARB drugs (P<0.05). Cardiopulmonary bypass time, cross-clamp time, circulation arrest time, hemostasis time and total operation time in the traditional method group were far longer than in the prothesis eversion group (P<0.01). The operative mortality was similar (P>0.01). Post-operatively, there was no statistically significant difference in the mean ventilation time, mortality, incidence of re-exploration, tracheostomy, paraplegia, long-term coma and stroke between the two groups (P>0.05). Patients in the traditional method group had a longer duration stay in ICU and hospital than patients in the prosthesis eversion group (P<0.05). Patients in the traditional method group received more red blood cells (RBC) (P<0.01), plasma (P<0.05), fibrinogen (P<0.01) and albumin (P<0.05) transfusions, and CoSeal™ surgical sealant (P<0.05) than patients in the prosthesis eversion group.
conclusionsOur experience and statistical analysis showed prosthesis eversion method to have some advantage in reducing blood loss and improving clinical results compared with repair with continuous suture. This technique is both simple to learn and perform.
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.