Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38249910›Full record

ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2023

Chest wall reconstruction, prosthesis and allografts: a narrative review.

Paolo Nicola Camillo Girotti, Fabrizio Bianchi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of thoracic disease, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Paolo Nicola Camillo GirottiGeneral, Visceral and Thoracic Surgery Department, Landeskrankenhaus Feldkirch, Feldkirch, Austria.
Fabrizio BianchiUnit of Cancer Biomarkers, Fondazione IRCCS Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza, San Giovanni Rotondo (FG), Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Objective: What is the best material in the case of prosthesis used to replace major chest wall resection is still unknown. We reviewed most significant literature focused on the type of prosthetic materials available by highlighting their relative pros and cons. Methods: We reviewed most significant articles, including clinical results of relevant case series (retrospective studies), published in English in the last 23 years: PubMed, Embase and Scopus databases were used in our search in the period between the 1 Key Content and Findings: Overall, our literature review revealed lack of uniformity or conformity in the surgical strategies described for chest wall reconstruction with no internationally accepted standard in terms of decisions and optimal prosthetic materials and type of prostheses (soft, rigid, biological). Despite the increased interest in chest wall reconstruction, we observed a general lack of substantial prospective and multicentric studies. Likewise, there are not substantial data which may guide to the choice of optimal prosthetics in terms of characteristics and biocompatibility. Conclusions: A variety of materials are available for reconstruction, including synthetic and biological meshes, flexible and rigid patches, and metal osteosynthesis systems. The material chosen should be optimized to each patient and damaged tissues to be restored. Prospective and multicentric studies are necessary to address current limits in this surgical field.

Indexed as

allograftChest wallprosthesisreconstructionresection

Identifiers

PMID38249910
PMCPMC10797370

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.