ArticleAnnals of surgical treatment and research2022
Hydrophilic guidewire usage under ultrasound guidance in facilitating catheter advancement during endovenous treatment of incompetent great saphenous veins.
Article in Annals of surgical treatment and research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study was performed To investigate the use of hydrophilic guidewires for facilitating catheter advancement during varicose vein treatment using radiofrequency ablation (RFA) or cyanoacrylate closure (CAC).
methodsFrom March 2016 to April 2019, 463 limbs of 285 with incompetent great saphenous veins were subjected to RFA (321 limbs of 197 patients) or CAC (142 limbs of 88 patients). Procedure records were reviewed for the use of a hydrophilic guidewire, reason for the guidewire usage, and diameter of the guidewire.
resultsA hydrophilic guidewire was used to facilitate catheter advancement to treat 92 of 463 limbs (19.9%). For RFA, a guidewire was used to treat 53 of 321 limbs (16.5%). Among them, 15 limbs (28.3%) had vasospasm, and 38 limbs (71.7%) had venous tortuosity. For CAC, guidewire was used for 39 of 142 limbs (27.5%). Among them, 10 limbs (25.6%) had vasospasm, 23 limbs (59.0%) had venous tortuosity, and 6 limbs (15.4%) had repeated engagement of a J-tip guidewire into the varicose tributaries. In CAC, the frequency of hydrophilic guidewire usage was higher than that in RFA (P = 0.006). All varicose vein treatment sessions were technically successful.
conclusionHydrophilic guidewire usage could facilitate catheter advancement when hindered by vasospasm, tortuosity of the saphenous vein, or repeated engagement into the varicose tributaries.
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.