Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36013332›Full record

ArticleLife (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Midterm Results of Iliac Branch Devices in a Newly Established Aortic Center.

Sarolta Borzsák, András Süvegh, András Szentiványi, Daniele Mariastefano Fontanini, Milán Vecsey-Nagy, Péter Banga, Péter Sótonyi, Zoltán Szeberin, Csaba Csobay-Novák

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Sarolta BorzsákDepartment of Interventional Radiology, Semmelweis University, 1122 Budapest, Hungary.
András SüveghDepartment of Interventional Radiology, Semmelweis University, 1122 Budapest, Hungary.
András SzentiványiDepartment of Interventional Radiology, Semmelweis University, 1122 Budapest, Hungary.
Daniele Mariastefano FontaniniDepartment of Interventional Radiology, Semmelweis University, 1122 Budapest, Hungary.
Milán Vecsey-NagyDepartment of Interventional Radiology, Semmelweis University, 1122 Budapest, Hungary.
Péter BangaSemmelweis Aortic Center, Heart and Vascular Center, Semmelweis University, 1122 Budapest, Hungary.
Péter SótonyiSemmelweis Aortic Center, Heart and Vascular Center, Semmelweis University, 1122 Budapest, Hungary.
Zoltán SzeberinSemmelweis Aortic Center, Heart and Vascular Center, Semmelweis University, 1122 Budapest, Hungary.
Csaba Csobay-NovákDepartment of Interventional Radiology, Semmelweis University, 1122 Budapest, Hungary.ORCID 0000-0003-0826-7888

Funding

Ministry for Innovation and Technology in Hungary 2020-4.1.1.-TKP2020National Research, Development and Innovation Fund of Hungary NVKP_16-1-2016-0017Semmelweis University EFOP-3.6.3-VEKOP-16-2017-00009
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The first-line treatment of common iliac artery aneurysms is endovascular repair. International guidelines recommend the preservation of the internal iliac artery, which is best achieved by the implantation of an iliac bifurcation device (IBD). Our aim was to evaluate the initial midterm results of IBDs in the leading vascular center of Hungary. In this single-center retrospective study, relevant clinical data and the results of the imaging examinations were collected and analyzed in all patients who underwent IBD implantation between December 2010 and July 2021. Thirty-five patients (31 males, mean age: 67.9 ± 8.5 years) underwent endovascular treatment with 37 IBD implantations. Technical success was achieved in 88.2% of the patients, with no perioperative mortality or open surgical conversion. One patient was lost during follow-up. Internal iliac artery occlusion was detected in three (8.8%) patients, and reintervention was performed in five (14.7%) patients. Primary patency of the internal iliac branch was 97.1% at 1 month, 93% at 2 months, and 89.0% at 5 years. The average follow-up time was 20.1 ± 26.2 months, during which two (5.9%) deaths occurred. Our initial experience with iliac branch devices was associated with a low complication rate and a favorable outcome, which confirms the midterm success of this intervention.

Indexed as

endovascular proceduresiliac aneurysmiliac branch device

Identifiers

PMID36013332
PMCPMC9409818

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.