ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2024
In situ fenestration (ISF) versus single-branched stent graft (SBSG) implantation in the management of acute Stanford type B aortic dissection involving the left subclavian artery.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2024. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: With the advances in medical technology and materials, thoracic endovascular aortic repair has become the mainstay of treatment for aortic dissection. In situ fenestration (ISF) and single-branch stent graft (SBSG) implantation are commonly used methods, with each having its own advantages and disadvantages. The study aimed to compare the perioperative outcomes and one-year follow-up results of patients who underwent ISF or SBSG in the treatment of acute Stanford type B aortic dissection involving the left subclavian artery (LSA). Methods: From January 2018 to December 2022, consecutive patients with Stanford type B aortic dissection were retrospectively recruited and divided into ISF group and SBSG group according to the type of surgery. The patient's aortic physiology was evaluated by computed tomography angiography at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after discharge. Results: This study included 67 patients in the SBSG group and 21 patients in the ISF group. The baseline and preoperative indices were similar between the groups. The success rate of perioperative treatment was 100%, and no adverse consequences occurred in either group. No spinal cord ischemia, stroke, or paraplegia occurred in either group during the one-year follow-up. The rate of endoleak in the SBSG group was significantly lower (3%, all type I endoleaks) than that in the ISF group (9.5% type I and 14.3% type II endoleaks) (P=0.005). Type II endoleak mainly occurred in the LSA. In addition, complete thrombosis of the false lumen was achieved in 95.5% of the SBSG group versus 81.0% of the ISF group, but this was not a significant difference (P=0.091). The maximum diameter of the true lumen increased significantly in the ISF (P<0.001) and SBSG (P<0.001) groups. Meanwhile, the maximum diameter of the false lumen was significantly reduced in the ISF (P<0.001) and SBSG (P<0.001) groups, but the difference in the maximum diameter change of the true or false lumen between the two groups was not statistically significant (P>0.05). Conclusions: SBSG was associated with a significantly lower incidence of endoleak than was ISF. However, there were no differences observed in complete thrombosis of the false lumen. Further studies with larger sample sizes are needed to definitively establish which treatment is superior in terms of complete thrombosis of the false lumen.
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.