ArticleInterdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery2024
Randomized comparison of oblique and perpendicular stabilizers for minimally invasive repair of pectus excavatum.
Article in Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03087734 (Evaluation of a New Model of Metallic Bar and Stabilizer for Use in the Minimally Invasive Repair of Pectus Excavatum), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Evaluation of a New Model of Metallic Bar and Stabilizer for Use in the Minimally Invasive Repair of Pectus Excavatum
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Bibliometric and clinical review of nuss bar stabilization techniques: a four-phase evolution toward lower bar displacement rates (1998-2025).Pediatric surgery international · 2026Pooled it
- Why is there so much reluctance to use more crossbars in pectus surgery?Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Reply: The benefits of tunneled dissection outweigh the risks in minimally invasive repair of pectus excavatum.JTCVS techniques · 2024Article
- Fractures in the minimally invasive repair of pectus excavatum: Let's retire the tunnel dissector?JTCVS techniques · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesBar dislocation is one of the most feared complications of the minimally invasive repair of pectus excavatum.
methodsProspective randomized parallel-group clinical trial intending to assess whether oblique stabilizers can reduce bar displacement in comparison with regular stabilizers used in minimally invasive repair of pectus excavatum. Additionally, we evaluated pain, quality of life and other postoperative complications. Participants were randomly assigned to surgery with perpendicular (n = 16) or oblique stabilizers (n = 14) between October 2017 and September 2018 and followed for 3 years. Bar displacements were evaluated with the bar displacement index. Pain scores were evaluated through visual analogue scale and quality of life through the Pectus Excavatum Evaluation Questionnaire.
resultsControl group average displacement index was 17.7 (±26.7) and intervention group average displacement index was 8.2 (±10.9). There was 1 reoperation in each group that required correction with 2 bars. Bar displacement was similar among groups (P = 0.12). No other complications were recorded. There was no statistically significant difference on pain score. There was a significant difference between pre- and postoperative composite scores of the participants' body image domain and psycho-social aspects in both groups. The difference between the pre- and postoperative participants' perception of physical difficulties was greater and statistically significant in the intervention group.
conclusionsThere was no statistical difference in the use of perpendicular or oblique stabilizers, but the availability of different models of stabilizers during the study suggested that this can be advantageous. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03087734.
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.