ReviewEJVES vascular forum2024
Systematic Review of Femoral Artery Stent Fractures.
Review in EJVES vascular forum, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Celiac Artery Stent Fracture to Treat Atherosclerotic Disease in Pre-Liver Transplant Patients.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2026Article
- Conservative management of asymptomatic vertebral artery stent fracture with fragment embolisation to V3 segment: a case report.Frontiers in surgery · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Primary stenting for long femoropopliteal (FP) lesions remains controversial because of the high risk of stent fracture (SF). This study aimed to summarise current knowledge on SF from randomised control trials about FP stenting. Methods: A systematic review of the Medline database was performed by a combined strategy of MeSH terms: femoral artery, popliteal artery, stenting, and stent fracture. SF was classified according to a standard classification: 1 = single strut fracture; 2 = ≥ two struts fracture; 3 = type 2 with deformation; 4 = multiple struts fracture with acquired transection; 5, type 4 with gap in the stent body. Results: The literature search identified 25 publications including covered stents (CSs; Conclusion: SF rates in large cohorts were low in CF and DES, and quite common in BMS, although none of them had clinical consequences. However, longer follow up and detailed, accurate reports are needed to assess eventual real clinical outcomes.
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.