ArticleJournal of medical imaging and radiation oncology2022
Pseudoendoleak: A post-endovascular aortic repair ultrasound surveillance pitfall - Single institution case series.
Article in Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Imaging and Innovations in Aortic Aneurysm and Dissection.Seminars in interventional radiology · 2024Review
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 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
introductionIn the context of increasingly common endovascular treatment for abdominal aortic aneurysms, endoleak is a relatively common complication of (abdominal) EVAR, and ongoing multimodality surveillance programs are recommended by expert bodies including the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS). We describe the colour doppler ultrasound (CDUS) finding defined as pseudoendoleak that may be misinterpreted as significant endoleak and may be resolved through the use of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS).
methodsRetrospective review of cases at our institution identified five cases where apparent endoleak on CDUS was not evident on CEUS, performed immediately following CDUS.
resultsEach of these five cases demonstrated interval increase in sac size at varying intervals post-EVAR, and in 4 out of 5 cases, no endoleak was demonstrated on multiple other modalities, at multiple time points. One case demonstrated an isolated type 2 endoleak at one time point, a finding that could not be reproduced. In each case, index-positive CDUS is thought to represent agitated fluid within the excluded sac that is not in continuity with the arterial blood pool as evidenced by the absence of CEUS enhancement.
conclusionsIn cases of positive post-EVAR CDUS, CEUS is an effective tool to exclude the presence of pseudoendoleak and thus avoid further and potentially invasive diagnostic modalities in an elderly and comorbid cohort.
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.