ArticleUpdates in surgery2024
Evaluation of cross-bar and parallel-bar techniques in MIRPE surgery in different countries: a multicenter study.
Article in Updates in surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Parallel-bar versus cross-bar configurations in the Nuss procedure: addressing cohort overlap and morphology-based selection criteria.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Why is there so much reluctance to use more crossbars in pectus surgery?Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Overcoming anatomical prohibition: Cross-bar Nuss elevation as a gateway to minimally invasive mitral valve repair.JTCVS techniques · 2026Article
- Parallel-bar versus cross-bar configurations in the Nuss procedure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Extension of the minimally invasive pectus repair to adult patients: strategies for success.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- International survey on the management of pectus excavatum: is there a consensus?Pediatric surgery international · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Parallel- and cross-bar techniques are surgical methods used in the pectus excavatum. While the parallel bar is used in many centers, the cross bar is a new technique. The aim of the study is to evaluate the data of centers using cross bar and parallel bar. The aim of this multicenter study is to retrospectively evaluate the data of centers have been using both cross-bar and parallel-bar techniques. 213 parallel bars and 205 cross bars were used. Parallel-bar advantages: the mean patient satisfaction score was 9.40 ± 0.95. Cross-bar advantages: the rate of patients with symmetric deformity was 75.6%, recurrence 0.5%. The mean patient satisfaction score was 9.40 ± 0.95 in operations performed with the parallel-bar technique and 9.13 ± 1.11 in operations performed with the cross-bar technique (p < 0.05). Recurrence was observed in 3.3% of patients undergoing surgery using the parallel-bar technique and 0.5% of patients undergoing surgery using the cross-bar technique (p < 0.04). The cross-bar technique is more advantageous in terms of the recurrence, while second, the parallel-bar technique is associated with greater patient satisfaction. Comparison of data from different countries reveals the differences between patients who have been treated with minimally invasive repair of pectus excavatum and the outcomes of surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38097827What 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.