ArticleTurkish journal of surgery2024
Inferior vena cava injuries: Are we doing what we really must?
Article in Turkish journal of 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The inferior vena cava (IVC) is one of the most frequent injured intra-abdominal vessels and its treatment requires prompt action. Despite advances in reanimation in last decades, there has not been proportional improvement in IVC mortality. This report aims to discuss the mortality predictive factors including the adherence to balanced reanimation and damage control surgery (DCS) in daily trauma assistance, their repercussions on outcomes, comparing our institution outcomes to literature. Material and Methods: A retrospective design analysis was made through database records of trauma patients at Clinic Hospital of University of Campinas, UNICAMP in order to investigate patients with IVC injuries, putting an emphasis on mortality predictive factors. Results: Seventy-four patients were identified with IVC injury from January 1990 to August 2017. Predominant mechanism was penetrating with 87.8% (76.3% gunshot). On arrival, 37.8% of all of the victims were hypotensive, and ISS median was 24.5. Regarding location of IVC, 68.5% were infrarenal, 12.2% were suprarenal, 18.9% retrohepatic. Simple repair was performed in 60.8%. Ligation was carried out in 27% and atriocaval shunt was performed in 4.1%. There was not enough time for specific procedure in 8.1%. Associated intra-abdominal injuries were present in 97.3%, and the mean of transfusional requirements was 9.1 ± 6.9 for packed red blood cells. Overall mortality rate was 52.7%, with a mortality rate for infrarenal injuries being 39.2%. Damage control surgery was adopted in 33.8%, with 68% mortality. Conclusion: A solid comprehension of shock reanimation has progressively been disseminated; however, trauma care professionals must assure that they are being applied with balanced reanimation and DCS.
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.