ArticleUlusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES2023
Deconstructive vs. reconstructive endovascular treatment paradigms in acute carotid blowout.
Article in Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Suspected carotid stent-graft infection presenting as recurrentFrontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCarotid Blowout (CBO), a neuro-oncological emergency characterized by the rupture of the carotid artery, has been predominantly reported in patients with head and neck cancer who have undergone radiation therapy. In this study, our objective is to share our experience with deconstructive and reconstructive endovascular treatments for CBO.
methodsThis study includes 17 patients who experienced intractable acute CBO, presenting with ear, oral, or nasal bleeding, between 2003 and 2022. We employed deconstructive embolization using vascular plugs, expanding hydrogel coils, glue, and balloons. If vascular anatomy and pathology permitted, we opted for reconstructive treatment using a covered stent. All patients underwent clini-cal follow-up visits, and we used the modified Rankin Scale to evaluate the clinical success of the procedures. We compared outcomes in terms of complications between the deconstructive and reconstructive treatment methods using the Chi-square test.
resultsThe patient cohort had an age range of 20-64 years (mean 50.9), including three females (18%) and 14 males (82%). We conducted 15 endovascular procedures on 14 patients during 19 angiography sessions. All 15 treatments achieved immediate hemo-stasis, resulting in complete technical success (p=1.0). Six patients (35%) underwent reconstructive treatments with covered stents in the internal carotid artery, while nine patients (65%) underwent deconstructive embolization in either the external or internal carotid artery. We found no significant association between the treatment paradigms (deconstructive vs. reconstructive) and the development of complications using a Chi-square test of independence X² (2, n=15)=0.07, p=0.79.
conclusionRecent advancements in endovascular treatments have shown promising results in managing life-threatening acute CBO cases. Our study found no significant difference in outcomes between deconstructive and reconstructive endovascular paradigms in such patients. However, it is important to note that the available data, including ours, is heterogeneous and scarce, necessitating higher levels of evidence to draw more definitive conclusions.
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.