Trial reportBMC surgery2024
Laparoscopic versus open lumbar sympathectomy in critical limb threatening ischemia patients in Egypt.
Trial report in BMC surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Lumbar Sympathectomy in Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischaemia: Current Trends and Future Directions.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2026Pooled it
- Thoracoscopic Sympathectomy in Treatment-Resistant Essential Hypertension: A Novel Approach to Reduce Sympathetic Activity and Blood Pressure.High blood pressure & cardiovascular prevention : the official journal of the Italian Society of Hypertension · 2026Article
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
purposeThe treatment of critical limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) is revascularization. Lumbar sympathectomy (LS) could be attempted when this is not amenable. Using laparoscopic techniques to perform LS adds the advantages of minimally invasive surgery.
methodsTwenty-four patients, presenting with non-reconstructable CLTI and rest pain, were randomly divided into group I (14 patients) who underwent retroperitoneoscopic lumbar sympathectomy (RPLS) and group II (10 patients) who had conventional open lumber sympathectomy (COLS).
resultsRPLS patients had shorter hospital stays, fewer intraoperative complications, and less postoperative pain. However, the mean operative time was significantly longer (86.4 ± 9.1 min, p-value: 0.02) in the RPLS group but decreased with each subsequent case after that. The differences in post-operative capillary refill time, ABI, TBI, and TcPO2 were not statistically significant between both groups (p-values: 0.97, 0.13, 0.32, 0.10, respectively). However, the difference in the quality-of-life score was statistically significant; the mean (± SD) SF-36 score increased from 48 ± 6.8 to 81 ± 4.4 (p-value < 0.001) in RPLS group compared to 52 ± 8.8 to 59 ± 1.2 (p-value: 0.52) in COLS group.
conclusionRPLS is feasible, safe, and has the advantages of minimally invasive surgery: minimal blood loss, less intraoperative complications, shorter hospital stay, and less postoperative pain. However, the operative time in RPLS cases is longer than in the COLS; training on the procedure is recommended to improve the learning curve.
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.