ArticleJournal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders2024
The outcome of sharp recanalization of chronic central venous occlusions in patients undergoing hemodialysis.
Article in Journal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sharp recanalization of extensive multilevel central venous occlusions in a young patient with familial Mediterranean fever: A case report.Radiology case reports · 2026Article
- Multimodality therapy for management of acute on chronic central vein occlusion to maintain patency of upper arm arteriovenous fistula.Journal of vascular surgery cases and innovative techniques · 2025Article
- Systemic Venous Recanalization: Iliocaval and Superior Vena Cava Reconstruction in Children.Seminars in interventional radiology · 2025Review
- Radiofrequency guidewire-facilitated recanalization of chronic thoracic central venous occlusions in hemodialysis patients.CVIR endovascular · 2024Article
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 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients on hemodialysis are particularly vulnerable to central venous occlusion (CVO). Endovascular treatment has gained wide acceptance for the treatment of CVO. However, difficulties in crossing the occluded segment can be encountered during conventional endovascular management. Sharp recanalization has been adopted when conventional endovascular methods could not recanalize the obstructed region. This study aimed to assess the outcome of the sharp venous recanalization technique with angioplasty and stenting in the treatment of CVO in Egyptian patients undergoing hemodialysis.
methodsThis retrospective study is based on data from a prospectively maintained department database of patients under regular hemodialysis who underwent the sharp venous recanalization technique for CVO. Routinely, the patients were followed up at 3, 6, and 12 months with a clinical examination. The primary outcomes were technical success and primary patency. Secondary outcomes included complication rates and clinical success.
resultsThis study included 40 patients. Thirty-six patients (90%) achieved technical and clinical success. Seven patients (17.5%) had immediate postoperative complications. Four cases had minor complications (10%) and three patients had major complications (7.5%): hemothorax in two patients (5.1%) and pneumothorax in one patient (2.6%). At the 1-year follow-up, reintervention was required in nine patients (22.5%), with primary patency rate of 77.5% and a secondary patency rate of 100%.
conclusionsSharp recanalization offers a solution for patients undergoing hemodialysis who developed CVO and failed to be recanalized using the conventional endovascular method. It offered promising technical success, clinical improvement, and good primary patency rates.
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.