ArticleGynecologic oncology reports2024
Postoperative venous thromboembolism risk in patients with vulvar carcinoma: An analysis of the National surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database.
Article in Gynecologic oncology reports, 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.
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
Abstract
Objectives: Due to low incidence of vulvar cancer (VC), incidence and predictors for development of venous thromboembolism (VTE) are poorly understood. We examined incidence and risk factors associated with VTE in patients undergoing surgery for VC. Methods: We included patients who underwent surgery for VC from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. VTE within the 30-day postoperative period was captured with Current Procedural Terminology codes. Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics were compared between patients with and without VTE. Univariable and multivariable-adjusted exact logistic regression models were used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for associations between risk factors and VTE. Results: We identified 1414 patients undergoing procedures for VC from the NSQIP database. Overall, 11 (0.8 %) patients developed VTE. Univariable predictors of VTE included surgery type [compared with simple vulvectomy: radical vulvectomy only (OR = 7.97, 95 % CI = 1.44, infinity) and radical vulvectomy plus unilateral IFN (OR = 15.98, 95 % CI = 2.70, infinity)], unplanned readmission (OR = 11.56, 95 % CI = 2.74, 46.38), deep surgical site infection (OR = 16.05, 95 % CI = 1.59-85.50), and preoperative thrombocytosis (OR = 6.53, 95 % CI = 0.00, 34.86). In a multivariable-adjusted model, longer operative time (≥72 min OR = 11.33, 95 % CI = 1.58-499.03) and preoperative functional status [compared with complete independence: total dependence (OR = 53.88, 95 % CI = 0.85, infinity) and partial dependence (OR = 53.88, 95 % CI = 0.85, infinity)] were associated with VTE. Conclusion: In this cohort of patients with VC undergoing radical vulvectomy, VTE incidence was low. Surgery type, longer operative time, dependent functional status, and wound disruption were identified as risk factors. Our findings highlight opportunities for prophylactic intervention in certain patients.
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.