ArticleGeneral thoracic and cardiovascular surgery2025
Safety and validity of selective cerebrospinal fluid drainage in open and endovascular aortic repair.
Article in General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery, 2025. 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.
- T4-non-small cell lung cancer invading the thoracic aorta: the role of the hybrid operating room.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
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
objectivesAlthough cerebrospinal fluid drainage has been shown to reduce the risk of ischemic spinal cord injury, serious complications have also been reported. We have been using it selectively in a pressure- and volume-regulated method and aimed to evaluate its safety, and its validity in elective thoracic endovascular aortic repair in a propensity-matched cohort.
methodsAmong the 450 patients who underwent open surgery (n = 169) or thoracic endovascular aortic repair (n = 281) on the descending or thoracoabdominal aorta, 147 underwent cerebrospinal fluid drainage, which was prophylactic in 135 and therapeutic in 12. Prophylactic drainage was performed in elective open surgery under distal aortic perfusion (n = 67) or in selected patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair (n = 68).
resultsDrainage-related complications were observed in 13 (9.6%), one of which was graded severe (0.74%). In patients undergoing prophylactic drainage, spinal cord injury was detected in 2/135 (1.5%). In patients without prophylactic drainage, 15/315 (4.8%) developed spinal cord injury. Therapeutic drainage was performed in 12 of these 15 patients, 10 of whom remained paralytic in varying degree. In the inverse probability weighted analysis of the patients undergoing elective thoracic endovascular aortic repair, the incidence of spinal cord injury was lower with prophylactic drainage (p = 0.028).
conclusionsPressure- and volume-regulated spinal drainage rarely causes serious complications. Its prophylactic use seems beneficial in selected patients, including those undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair with high risk for spinal cord injury.
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.