Observational studyJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2024
Assessment of the quality of life comparison between open and endovascular aortic arch surgery: a pilot study.
Observational study in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 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.
- Aortic arch open surgery: countdown started or timeless approach?Annals of cardiothoracic surgery · 2026Article
- Utilization of Zenith Alpha Thoracic 2.0 to facilitate physician-modified triple retrograde inner branched endovascular repair of the aortic arch via a single percutaneous femoral access.Journal of vascular surgery cases and innovative techniques · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdvancement in endovascular endografts have paved the way to the possibility of performing endovascular aortic arch repair in recent years. This has started to supersede the need for open aortic arch surgery. There remains a paucity of data looking into the quality of life comparison between open aortic arch surgery and endovascular aortic arch repair.
methodA retrospective, observational pilot study was performed on patients who underwent endovascular inner branched aortic arch repair and open aortic arch surgery. Patients completed the RAND SF-36 questionnaire at the 6 week follow-up post-surgery. Mean score across all eight subscales were compared to the New Zealand population norm based on the New Zealand Health Survey as cited in the SoFIE-Health study.
resultsA total of 12 patients were included in this study over a 3 year period. We demonstrated that endovascular aortic arch repair is associated with a better quality of life compared to open aortic arch surgery across all eight subscales. Pain scores were found to be higher than the population normal in the endovascular aortic arch repair group while the open aortic arch surgery group had a score lower than the population norm (P < 0.01).
conclusionThere appears to be a trend towards better quality of life following endovascular aortic arch repair compared to open aortic arch repair.
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.