ArticleEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM2022
A Cohort Study of Surgical Indexes, Postoperative Complications, Recovery Speed, and Prognosis of Stanford Type A Aortic Dissection Compared with Traditional Sun's Operation.
Article in Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Retracted: A Cohort Study of Surgical Indexes, Postoperative Complications, Recovery Speed, and Prognosis of Stanford Type A Aortic Dissection Compared with Traditional Sun's Operation.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2023-07-19Concerns/Issues about Data · Concerns/Issues about Referencing/Attributions · Concerns/Issues about Peer Review · Investigation by Journal/Publisher · Investigation by Third Party · Unreliable Results and/or Conclusions · · See also: https://pubpeer.com/publications/BA9F3CE871C1F054920C8ED83236C4
- Retracted
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The objective is to explore the surgical index, postoperative complications, recovery speed, and prognosis of Stanford type A aortic dissection (AD) compared with traditional 'Sun's operation. Methods: One hundred patients with Stanford type A AD treated from February 2018 to February 2021 were enrolled in our hospital. Patients were randomly divided into control and research group. The former group underwent traditional Sun's surgery, and the latter group underwent combined debranching surgery. The general data, surgical indexes, total amount of blood transfusion, renal function 72 hours after operation, postoperative indexes during hospitalization, and follow-up results after discharge were compared between the two groups. Results: The CPB time, ACC time, operation time, and postoperative total drainage volume of the study group were all lower than those of the control group, and the intraoperative urine volume of the study group was higher than that of the control group ( Conclusion: Both Sun's operation and branch removal are more effective treatment methods, and the two different surgical methods have different indications, advantages, and disadvantages, so different surgical methods can be chosen according to different conditions for Stanford AD. The possible postoperative complications should be comprehensively analyzed in the clinical work in order to reduce the occurrence of postoperative complications and improve the cure rate.
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.