ArticleHeliyon2025
A case report on the novel application of CRRT in renal vein shunting surgery.
Article in Heliyon, 2025. 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
Background: Giant abdominal tumors exceeding 10 cm in diameter are rare and often involve several critical organs and vascular structures. The primary treatment is surgical excision, which presents substantial challenges, including organ preservation, hemorrhage control, and intact tumor removal. Case summary: We present a 46-year-old male with a massive abdominal mass invading the right kidney and inferior vena cava (IVC). To address this, we developed a novel technique using continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) renal vein (RV) shunt procedure. A temporary dialysis catheter was placed in the internal jugular vein to divert blood from the left RV to the superior vena cava. After excising the mass and part of the IVC, an artificial blood vessel was used to reconnect the left RV to the IVC. The urine output of the patient was normal during the surgery, and the renal function remained normal during the 343 days' follow-up period. This approach streamlined the surgical procedures, operating time, blood loss, and avoided systemic heparinization through regional citrate anticoagulation. Conclusion: This innovative surgical technique is particularly effective for complex cases requiring simultaneous occlusion of the IVC and both RVs. It enhances patient safety and outcomes and has significant potential for broader application in urology and general surgery. This case highlights the value of surgical innovation in overcoming complex challenges and provides valuable insights for the medical community.
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.