SynthesisFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2022
The evolution of arch surgery: Frozen elephant trunk or conventional elephant trunk?
Synthesis in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Open, Hybrid and Endovascular Management of Aortic Arch Aneurysms: Recent Updates and Future Directions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Frozen elephant trunk: a narrative review of global and temporal trends.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- Warming up the frozen elephant trunk for aortic arch pathology.Annals of cardiothoracic surgery · 2025Article
- Early and 3-Year Outcomes of Frozen Elephant Trunk Procedure with Evolving E-vita Hybrid Grafts: A Retrospective Single-Centre Cohort Study over 11 Years.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Article
- Are frozen elephant trunks freezing out conventional ones? A systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of cardiothoracic surgery · 2025Article
- Article
- State-of-the-Art Review of Aortic Arch Reconstruction With the Frozen Elephant Trunk.Innovations (Philadelphia, Pa.)Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Treatment of aortic arch aneurysms and dissections require highly complex surgical procedures with devastating complications and mortality rates. Currently, repair of the complete arch until the proximal descending thoracic aorta consists of a two-stage procedure, called elephant trunk (ET) technique, or a single stage a single-stage technique referred to as frozen elephant trunk (FET). There is conflicting evidence about the perioperative results of ET in comparison with FET. We carried out a meta-analysis to investigate possible differences in perioperative and early (up to 30 days) outcomes of ET vs. FET, particularly for mortality, spinal cord injury (SCI), stroke, and renal failure. We also performed a meta-regression to explore the effects of age and sex as possible cofactors. Twenty-one studies containing data from interventions conducted between 1997 and 2019 and published between 2008 and 2021 with 3153 patients (68.5% male) were included. ET was applied to 1,693 patients (53.7%) and FET to 1460 (46.3%). Overall mortality after ET was 250/1693 (14.8%) and after FET 116/1460 (7.9%). Relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were 1.37 [1.04 to 1.81],
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.