ArticleJTCVS techniques2025
Open ascending aorta replacement combined with fenestrated total aortic arch stenting.
Article in JTCVS techniques, 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.
- Hybrid approach to ascending aorta replacement: Are the outcomes truly superior?JTCVS techniques · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this retrospective single-center study was to report a novel hybrid technique of replacement of the ascending aorta and implantation of fenestrated stent-graft of the entire aortic arch for Stanford type A aortic dissection and to analyze clinical experience and outcomes. Methods: From January 2019 to January 2023 in Tongji hospital, 31 cases (26 men and 5 women, mean age 56.06 ± 10.34 years) with Stanford type A aortic dissection underwent open ascending aorta replacement combined with total endovascular arch repair. All patients underwent ascending aorta replacement without hypothermia or circulatory arrest. Arch intervention was performed with self-modified stent-grafts to preserve the aortic arch native branches. Result: The surgical technical success rate was 100% in all patients. One (3.22%) patient died after surgery due to cerebral hemorrhage. Five (16.13%) patients with preoperative renal insufficiency required hemodialysis. Six (19.36%) patients were on mechanical ventilation for more than 48 hours. One patient was found to have an endoleak (Type IV). There were 25 (83.33%) patients who underwent follow-up with a median follow-up time of 14.00 months (range, 6.50-28.50 months). Two (8.00%) of them died (1 of infectious shock and the other of respiratory arrest) and 2 (8.00%) underwent aortic reoperation. Conclusions: Single-stage open ascending aortic replacement combined with the total aortic endovascular arch intervention may provide satisfactory early outcomes in Stanford type A aortic dissection. This strategy may be valuable for a subgroup of patients deemed inappropriate candidates for open classic full 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.