ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024
Prognosis of LSPD versus TIPS for the treatment of esophagogastric variceal bleeding in cirrhosis.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to compare postoperative complications in patients with esophagogastric variceal bleeding (EVB) who underwent laparoscopic splenectomy combined with pericardial devascularization (LSPD) versus transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) procedures.
methodsA retrospective collection of medical records was conducted from January 2014 to May 2020 at Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology. The study included patients from the departments of trauma surgery, interventional radiology, and general surgery who were diagnosed with EVB caused by portal hypertension and treated with LSPD or TIPS. Follow-up data were obtained to assess the occurrence of postoperative complications in both groups.
resultsA total of 201 patients were included in the study, with 104 cases in the LSPD group and 97 cases in the TIPS group. There was no significant difference in the 1-year and 3-year post-surgery survival rates between the TIPS and LSPD groups (P = 0.669, 0.066). The 3-year survival rate of Child-Pugh B patients in the LSPD group was higher than TIPS group (P = 0.041). The LSPD group also had a significantly higher rate of freedom from rebleeding at 3-year post-surgery compared to the TIPS group (P = 0.038). Stratified analysis showed no statistically significant difference in the rebleeding rate between the two groups. Furthermore, the LSPD group had a higher rate of freedom from overt hepatic encephalopathy at 1-year and 3-year post-surgery compared to the TIPS group (P = 0.007, < 0.001). The LSPD group also had a lower rate of severe complications at 3-year post-surgery compared to the TIPS group (P = 0.020).
conclusionCompared to TIPS, LSPD does not increase the risk of mortality and rebleeding, while demonstrating fewer complications. In patients classified as Child-Pugh A and B, the use of LSPD for treating EVB is both safe and effective.
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.