ArticleCase reports in surgery2024
Sutureless and Rapid Deployment Prosthesis in Redo-Bentall Endocarditis.
Article in Case reports in 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aortic valve replacement (AVR) in a patient with a bio-Bentall conduit can be very challenging, especially if there was a previous endocarditis process for significant morbidity and mortality. We report a case of sutureless AVR in an old patient with a bio-Bentall conduit (Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Magna Ease 25 aortic valve and Hemashield 30 aortic conduit), who developed an endocarditis on aortic prosthesis valve. We believe that sutureless AVR is the best option for redo-operation in older patients with a high surgical risk because it allows for easy rapid deployment implantation, avoids anchoring sutures on a fragile aortic anulus, and reduces cardiopulmonary and aortic cross-clamp times. In this setting, it should be considered as a safe and valid alternative not only to traditional prosthesis but also in selected cases to transcatheter valve-in-valve solutions.
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.