Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38972545›Full record

ArticleJournal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders2024

Effectiveness and safety of coils plus glue in slope embankment technology versus coils plus sclerosant in embolization therapy for reflux-type pelvic venous disorders.

Zhiwei Zhou, Meichun Yang, Pingfan Guo, Jinchi Zhang, Fanggang Cai, Xueqiang Liu, Luyao Li, Yu Zhang, Yiquan Dai

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Zhiwei ZhouDepartment of Vascular Surgery, the First Affiliated Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China; Department of Vascular Surgery, National Regional Medical Center, Binhai Campus of the First Affiliated Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.
Meichun YangDepartment of Gynecology, Clinical Oncology School of Fujian Medical University, Fujian Cancer Hospital, Fuzhou, China.
Pingfan GuoDepartment of Vascular Surgery, the First Affiliated Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China; Department of Vascular Surgery, National Regional Medical Center, Binhai Campus of the First Affiliated Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.
Jinchi ZhangDepartment of Vascular Surgery, the First Affiliated Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China; Department of Vascular Surgery, National Regional Medical Center, Binhai Campus of the First Affiliated Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.
Fanggang CaiDepartment of Vascular Surgery, the First Affiliated Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China; Department of Vascular Surgery, National Regional Medical Center, Binhai Campus of the First Affiliated Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.
Xueqiang LiuDepartment of Vascular Surgery, the First Affiliated Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China; Department of Vascular Surgery, National Regional Medical Center, Binhai Campus of the First Affiliated Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.
Luyao LiDepartment of Vascular Surgery, the First Affiliated Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China; Department of Vascular Surgery, National Regional Medical Center, Binhai Campus of the First Affiliated Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.
Yu ZhangDepartment of Vascular Surgery, the First Affiliated Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China; Department of Vascular Surgery, National Regional Medical Center, Binhai Campus of the First Affiliated Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.
Yiquan DaiDepartment of Vascular Surgery, the First Affiliated Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China; Department of Vascular Surgery, National Regional Medical Center, Binhai Campus of the First Affiliated Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China. Electronic address: daiyiquan@sina.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of coils plus glue (CPG) in slope embankment technology vs coils plus sclerosant (CPS) in treating reflux-type pelvic venous disorders.

methodsThe analysis included patients diagnosed with reflux-type pelvic venous disorders who were treated with CPG or CPS from 2019 to 2021. The inclusion criteria were noncyclic pain lasting more than 6 months, atypical varicose, and transvaginal Doppler ultrasound (TVDUS) and computed tomographic venography confirming the diagnosis and excluding compression factors and other diseases. Propensity score matching was performed at a 1:1.1 ratio based on the following covariates: age, pregnancy, body mass index, pretreatment visual analog scale (VAS), dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, urinary urgency, tenesmus, low back pain, vulvar varicosities, vaginal varicosities, and lower limb varices. The pain was relieved by embolizing the target lesions with different embolic materials. The efficacy and safety of the different embolization materials were compared by VAS and TVDUS examinations at 1, 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months.

resultsFrom a total of 495 patients, 88 patients were selected from the CPG group and 77 patients from the CPS group by propensity score matching. The patients were followed up for 36 months. The preoperative VAS score of the CPG group was 8 (range, 6-8), and the CPS score was 8 (range, 7-8; P = .64). The postembolization VAS score of the CPG group was 2.05 ± 0.37, and the CPS score was 2.14 ± 0.35 (P = .55). A total of 28 cases (16.9%) showed complications, most of which were transient pain after embolization. No serious complications such as coil embolization to the lungs occurred. In addition, the CPG group used fewer coils than the CPS group by using the slope embankment technique. The mean coil length of the CPG group was 77.18 ± 33.82 cm, and the CPS group was 105.29 ± 71 cm (P = .001). The CPG group had an average operative time of 44.49 ± 5.72 minutes, whereas the CPS group took 43.45 ± 4.18 minutes on average (P = .19). The radiation dose in the CPG group was 398.40 ± 76.16 mGy, and the radiation dose in the CPS group was 388 ± 44.23 mGy (P = .30). The median recurrence-free survival in the CPG group was 34.23 months (95% confidence interval, 33.2-35.2), and the median recurrence-free survival in the CPS group was 30.39 months (95% confidence interval, 28.2-32.6; log rank P = .018).

conclusionsEmbolization therapy for refluxing PeVD was safe and effective, and proficient use of slope embankment technique with CPG increased efficacy and reduced complications.

Indexed as

Embolization, TherapeuticSclerosing SolutionsAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPelvic PainPelvisRetrospective StudiesSclerotherapyTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeVaricose VeinsVenous InsufficiencySclerosing SolutionsEmbolismPelvic congestion syndrome (PCS)Pelvic venous disorders (PeVD)Venous

Identifiers

PMID38972545
PMCPMC11774125

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.