ArticleBrazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery2022
Outcomes of Arteriotomy Closure Technique for Carotid Endarterectomy: Bovine Pericardial Patch Closure versus Primary Closure.
Article in Brazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery, 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of carotid endarterectomy with primary closure versus patch angioplasty.BMC surgery · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe aim of our study was to compare the primary closure (PRC) and patch angioplasty closure (PAC) of carotid artery following carotid endarterectomy (CEA).
methodsData of patients who underwent CEA in the period from January 2005 to June 2020 were reviewed through files. Demographic characteristics, information about the operation, and postoperative follow-up outcomes of the patients were compared.
resultsOf the 144 CEA cases included in the study, PRC and PAC were applied to 62 (43.7%) and 82 (56.3%) patients, respectively, for the carotid artery closure. Duration of surgery and carotid artery clamping time were not different between the PRC and PAC groups (106.73±17.13 minutes vs. 110.48±20.67 minutes, P=0.635; 24.25±11.56 minutes vs. 25.19±8.99 minutes, P=0.351, respectively). Postoperative respiratory impairment was more common in the PRC group (P=0.012); however, nerve injuries (P=0.254), surgical wound hematomas (P=0.605), surgical site infections (P=0.679), and mortality (P=0.812) were not significantly different between the groups. During the mean patient follow-up time of 26.13±19.32 months, restenosis was more common in the PRC group than in the PAC group (n=26, 41.9% vs. n=4, 4.9%, respectively; P=0.003). Frequencies of stroke (n=4, 2.8% vs. n=2, 2.4%, respectively; P=0.679), transient ischemic attacks (n=2, 1.4% vs. n=0, 0%, respectively; P=0.431), and mortality (n=4, 6.5% vs. n=4, 4.9%, respectively; P=0.580) were not significantly different between the PRC and PAC groups.
conclusionWe are of the opinion that the PAC method is effective and safe for carotid artery closure in patients undergoing CEA.
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.