ArticleJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2024
Image fusion guidance for left subclavian artery in situ fenestration during thoracic endovascular repair.
Article in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multimodal image fusion guidance for the treatment of structural heart disease and aortic dissection in hybrid operation room: a single-center case series in a hybrid operating room.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Fusion Imaging in Endovascular Thrombectomy for Acute Ischemic Stroke.Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.) · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the feasibility and clinical benefit of utilizing image fusion for thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR) with in situ fenestration (ISF-TEVAR). MATERIALS AND
methodsBetween January 2020 and December 2020, we prospectively collected 18 consecutive cases with complex thoracic aortic lesions who underwent image fusion guided ISF-TEVAR. As a control group, 18 patients were collected from historical medical records from June 2019 to December 2019. The fusion group involved the use of 3D fusion of CTA and fluoroscopic images for real-time 3D guidance, and the control group involved the use of only regular fluoroscopic images for guidance. The total contrast medium volume, hand-injected contrast medium volume, overall operative time, radiation dose and fluoroscopy time were compared between the two groups. Accuracy was measured based on preoperative CTA and intraoperative digital subtraction angiography.
results3D fusion imaging guidance was successfully implemented in all patients in the fusion group. Hand-injected contrast medium volume and overall operative time were significantly lower in the fusion group than in the control group (p = .028 and p = .011). Compared with the control group, the fusion group showed a significant reduction in time and radiation dose-area product (DAP) for fluoroscopy (p = .004 and p = .010). No significant differences in total radiation dose (DAP) or total contrast medium volume were observed (p = .079 and p = .443). Full accuracy was achieved in 8 cases (44%), with a mean deviation of 2.61 mm ± 3.1 (range 0.0-8.4 mm).
conclusions3D image fusion for ISF-TEVAR was associated with a significant reduction in hand-injected contrast medium, time and radiation exposure for fluoroscopy and overall operative time. The image fusion guidance showed potential clinical benefits towards improved treatment safety and accuracy for complex thoracic endovascular interventions.
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.