ArticleAmerican journal of cancer research2025
Efficacy and safety of endovascular repair versus open surgery for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: a comparative study.
Article in American journal of cancer research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Association Betweenn Preoperative RDW and Postoperative Pulmonary Embolism in Trauma Patients: A Propensity Score-Matched Multicenter Cohort Study.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveRuptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) is a life-threatening condition with high mortality. This study compared the efficacy and safety of open surgical repair (OSR) and endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) in the treatment of rAAA.
methodsA retrospective analysis of clinical data was conducted for 232 rAAA patients treated at Taizhou Central Hospital and the First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical College. Patients were divided into two groups based on surgical methods: OSR group (n=84) and EVAR group (n=148). Perioperative indicators, perioperative complication rates, and 1-year mortality rates were compared. Patients were further divided into a survival group (n=160) and a death group (n=72) based on their 1-year survival status, and the risk factors affecting the prognosis of rAAA patients were analyzed. Postoperative pain was evaluated using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Verbal Rating Scale (VRS), and Present Pain Intensity (PPI). Serum levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) and white blood cells (WBC), pro-inflammatory interleukins (IL-1α, IL-6, IL-8), and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) were measured before and after treatment using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA).
resultsCompared with the OSR group, the EVAR group had significantly shorter surgical time, less intraoperative bleeding (IOB) and intraoperative blood transfusion volume, reduced intraoperative infusion volume, shorter fasting and first walk time, and shorter ICU and hospital days. The incidence of complications in the EVAR group was significantly lower than that in the OSR group (
conclusionEVAR demonstrates significant advantages over OSR in reducing surgical trauma, decreasing postoperative complications, alleviating pain and inflammatory responses, and improving postoperative survival rates.
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.