ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2022
Comparison of percutaneous and cutdown access‑related minor complications after endovascular aortic repair.
Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Present-Day State of Percutaneous Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Feasibility of a modified hybrid glubran-supported single-proglide technique for access closure during endovascular aneurysm repair.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Article
- Dual Suture Versus Suture and Plug Closure Devices for Large Bore Access Haemostasis During Percutaneous Access Endovascular Aneurysm Repair.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2023Article
- pTEVAR of an aorto-esophageal fistula in esophageal cancer: Case report and review of the literature.Radiology case reports · 2023Article
- Percutaneous Approach in Endovascular Aortic Procedures Using a Suture-Mediated Closure Device.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to compare the open surgical and percutaneous access for thoracic/endovascular aortic repair (T/EVAR) regarding in-hospital and post-hospital minor-complications. Percutaneous (pEVAR) and cutdown (cEVAR) techniques for femoral vessel access for T/EVAR were compared regarding their minor complications. The basic population of this retrospective cohort study consisted of 44 percutaneous and 215 cutdown accesses for endovascular aortic repair (T/EVAR-procedure) conducted between August 2008 and October 2019. The primary outcome consisted of conservatively treatable minor complications until hospital discharge and during follow up. Secondary outcomes comprised postoperative pain and complications requiring invasive treatment. Minor complications were observed in 11.4% (pEVAR) vs. 9% (cEVAR) of cases throughout index hospital stay and 10 vs. 13.7% during follow-up. No significant differences were noticed regarding overall complication rate between pEVAR and cEVAR. Only bleedings treatable through compression occurred significantly more often in the pEVAR-group (6.8 vs. 0.5%; P=0.02). In conclusions, the percutaneous technique represents a safe and quickly executable alternative to cutdown access. A significant difference in overall minor complications could not be observed. In both techniques, complications may occur even months after surgery. In order to demonstrate the superiority of the percutaneous technique compared with cutdown access, possible predictors for the use of the percutaneous technique should be defined in the future.
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.