ArticleBMC surgery2024
The application of interventional methods in control of blood loss during giant upper extremity tumor resection.
Article in BMC 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purposes of this retrospective study were to determine the efficacy of interventional methods in control of intraoperative blood losses and investigate the perioperative complications.
methodsThe cases of 44 patients in whom a giant upper extremity tumor had been operated between 2008 and 2022 were analyzed retrospectively. Of these, 29 patients were treated with interventional methods (Group A) and 15 were treated without (Group B). Group A was further divided based on the intervention methodss: Group C (combination of balloon occlusion and transarterial embolization [TAE], n = 11) and Group D (single TAE, n = 18). Within Group D, patients were categorized based on the timing of TAE relative to surgery into Group E (TAE on the same day as surgery) and Group F (TAE performed days before surgery). We compared demographic features, blood loss, ICU admission rates, and use of vasopressors during surgery.
resultsWe collected clinical records from 44 patients diagnosed with a giant upper extremity tumor who underwent surgery. Group sizes were as follows: A (29), B (15), C (11), D (18), E (7), and F (11). Tumor volumes in the interventional and non-interventional groups were similar (704.19 ± 812.77 cm³ vs. 1224.53 ± 1414.01 cm³, P = 0.127). Blood plasma transfusion was significantly higher in Group B compared to Group A (425.33 ± 476.20 ml vs. 155.90 ± 269.67 ml, P = 0.021). Although overall blood loss did not significantly differ between Group A and Group B (467.93 ± 302.08 ml vs. 1150 ± 1424.15 ml, P = 0.087), the rate of massive bleeding (defined as blood loss over 1000 ml) was lower in Group A (6.9% vs. 46.47%, P = 0.004). The proportion of minors (patients aged less than 18) in Group C was significantly higher than in Group D (27.7% vs. 0.00%, P = 0.045). The amount of RBC transfusion was also significantly higher in Group C compared to Group D (458.18 ± 292.22 ml vs. 164.44 ± 224.03 ml, P = 0.021). No significant perioperative complications were observed.
conclusionsInterventional techniques have been shown to reduce both blood loss and the necessity for blood transfusions in patients with large upper extremity tumors. Furthermore, no significant perioperative complications have been observed.
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.