ArticleJournal of chest surgery2022
High Mini-Skin Incision during Carotid Endarterectomy for Carotid Stenosis.
Article in Journal of chest surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is used to treat carotid stenosis, which is associated with cerebral infarction and may result in neurologic deficits such as stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), and local nerve injury. To decrease surgery-related complications and improve patient satisfaction with esthetic outcomes, efforts have been made to minimize incision size instead of using a standard longitudinal incision. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of 151 cases of CEA, of which 110 used conventional incisions and 41 used high mini-skin incisions (HMIs), from March 2015 to December 2021 at a single institution. Short-term (30-day) postoperative results were evaluated for rates of mortality, stroke, TIA, and cranial/cervical nerve injuries. Risk factors for nerve injury were also assessed. Results: The HMI group showed significantly (p<0.01) shorter operative and clamp times than the conventional group. The HMI group also had significantly shorter incision lengths (5.3±0.9 cm) than the conventional group (11.5±2.8 cm). The rates of stroke, TIA, and death at 30 days were not significantly different between the 2 groups. There was no significant difference in the rate of cranial and cervical nerve injuries, and all injuries were transient. A high lesion level (odds ratio [OR], 9.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.21-28.42; p<0.01) and the clamp time (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.03-1.12; p<0.01) were found to be risk factors for nerve injuries. Conclusion: Use of the HMI in CEA for carotid stenosis was advantageous for its shorter operative time, shorter internal carotid artery clamp time, reduced neurologic complications, and improved esthetics.
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.