Observational studyPloS one2021
Evaluating the safety of two human experimental intestinal ischemia reperfusion models: A retrospective observational study.
Observational study in PloS one, 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rapid Fluorescent Determination of Imidacloprid in Food Samples Using a Phenothiazine-oxadiazole Probe.Journal of fluorescence · 2026Article
- Dual-arterial occlusion of the celiac trunk and superior mesenteric artery for laparoscopic enucleation of deep-seated or broad-based pancreatic head tumors: a prospective, single-arm pilot study.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe developed a jejunal and colonic experimental human ischemia-reperfusion (IR) model to study pathophysiological intestinal IR mechanisms and potential new intestinal ischemia biomarkers. Our objective was to evaluate the safety of these IR models by comparing patients undergoing surgery with and without in vivo intestinal IR.
methodsA retrospective study was performed comparing complication rates and severity, based on the Clavien-Dindo classification system, in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy with (n = 10) and without (n = 20 matched controls) jejunal IR or colorectal surgery with (n = 10) and without (n = 20 matched controls) colon IR. Secondary outcome parameters were operative time, blood loss, 90-day mortality and length of hospital stay.
resultsFollowing pancreatic surgery, 63% of the patients experienced one or more postoperative complications. There was no significant difference in incidence or severity of complications between patients undergoing pancreatic surgery with (70%) or without (60%, P = 0.7) jejunal IR. Following colorectal surgery, 60% of the patients experienced one or more postoperative complication. Complication rate and severity were similar in patients with (50%) and without (65%, P = 0.46) colonic IR. Operative time, amount of blood loss, postoperative C-reactive protein, length of hospital stay or mortality were equal in both intervention and control groups for jejunal and colon IR.
conclusionThis study showed that human experimental intestinal IR models are safe in patients undergoing pancreatic or colorectal surgery.
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.