ArticleScience progress
Endovascular treatment of systematic isolated mesenteric artery dissection with a patent false lumen: Bare stents alone versus stent-assisted coiling.
Article in Science progress. 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, 1 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesBare stent treatment and bare stent-assisted coiling treatment have not been directly compared in symptomatic isolated superior mesenteric artery dissection with a patent false lumen. Thus, we compared the early and mid-term outcomes of bare stent treatment and bare stent-assisted coiling treatment to determine the most effective remedy for patients with this condition.
methodsConsecutive patients diagnosed with systematic isolated superior mesenteric artery dissection with a patent false lumen admitted to the study hospital between January 2016 and December 2021 were enrolled in this retrospective study. Their demographic data, clinical findings, treatment options, early outcomes, and follow-up results were analyzed.
resultsA total of 85 patients (83 men) were included. 34.1% (n = 29) adopted bare stent treatment and 65.9% (n = 56) underwent bare stent-assisted coiling treatment. The symptoms were relieved in all patients (100%) with bare stent treatment and bare stent-assisted coiling treatment. There was no significant difference in the length of hospital stay between the two endovascular treatments (
conclusionBoth bare stent treatment and bare stent-assisted coiling treatment for symptomatic isolated superior mesenteric artery dissection with a patent false lumen have the same satisfying early outcome. In the midterm follow-up, bare stent-assisted coiling treatment has the higher cumulative complete remodeling rate which could be prioritized to treat this condition.
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.