ArticleAorta (Stamford, Conn.)2023
The Fate of Conventional Elephant Trunk in the Frozen Elephant Trunk Era.
Article in Aorta (Stamford, Conn.), 2023. 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Conventional elephant trunk (cET) and frozen elephant trunk (FET) are two distinct approaches to the surgical treatment of thoracic aortic aneurysms and dissections. With the advent and growing uptake of endovascular technologies, FET is becoming increasingly popular for its potential to be performed as a single-stage operation with better aortic remodeling and less risk of graft kinking than the traditional two-stage cET procedure. However, FET has been associated with a higher risk of spinal cord ischemia and its use in patients with connective tissue disorder remains controversial. The current review aimed to reflect on recent evidence surrounding the application of cET and FET to different types of aortic pathology in both acute and elective settings. Another scope of this review was to compare the characteristics of the currently available FET commercial devices on the global market. Our findings highlight that when the pathology is confined to the proximal descending aorta, such as in Dsine, intervention is often single-staged and false lumen (FL) thrombosis is achieved with good effect. FET remains limited by spinal cord injury and applicability in patients with connective tissue disorder, although some groups have started to circumvent associated complications, likely due to growing surgical expertise. Many other aortic diseases do require second-stage intervention, and even in these cases, there appears to be lower in-hospital mortality when using FET over cET. This is possibly due to the higher rate of endovascular completion facilitated by the completed landing zones created during FET. FET is trending toward becoming the universal treatment modality for extending repair to the descending aorta.
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.