ArticleTrauma surgery & acute care open2023
A self calibrating, magnetic sensor approach accurately positions an aortic damage control stent in a porcine model.
Article in Trauma surgery & acute care open, 2023. 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, 0 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
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: Non-compressible torso hemorrhage remains a high mortality injury, with difficulty mobilizing resources before exsanguination. Previous studies reported on a retrievable stent graft for damage control and morphometric algorithms for rapid placement, yet fluoroscopy is impractical for the austere environment. We hypothesized that magnetic sensors could be used to position stents relative to an external magnet placed on an anatomic landmark, whereas an electromagnet would allow self-calibration to account for environmental noise. Methods: A magnetic sensor alone (MSA) and with integrated stent (MSIS) were examined in a porcine model under anesthesia. A target electromagnet was placed on the xiphoid process (position 0 cm). Sensors were placed in the aorta and measurements obtained at positions 0 cm, +4 cm, and +12 cm from the magnet and compared with fluoroscopy. Sensors were examined under conditions of tachycardia/hypertension, hypotension, vibration, and metal shrapnel to simulate environmental factors that might impact accuracy. General linear models compared mean differences between fluoroscopy and sensor readings. Results: Both sensors were compatible with a 10 French catheter system and provided real-time assessment of the distance between the sensor and magnetic target in centimeters. Mean differences between fluoroscopy and both magnetic sensor readings demonstrated accuracy within ±0.5 cm for all but one condition at 0 cm and +4 cm, whereas accuracy decreased at +12 cm from the target. Using the control as a reference, there was no significant difference in mean differences between fluoroscopy and both MSA or MSIS readings at 0 cm and +4 cm for all conditions. The system retained effectiveness if the target was overshot. Conclusion: Magnetic sensors achieved the highest accuracy as sensors approached the target. Oscillation of the electromagnet on and off effectively accounts for environmental noise.This approach is promising for rapid and accurate placement of damage control retrievable stent grafts when fluoroscopy is impractical. Level of evidence: Not applicable.
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.