ReviewAnnals of cardiothoracic surgery2025
The development of the Siena graft.
Review in Annals of cardiothoracic surgery, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The evolution of surgical replacement of the aortic arch has been shaped by advances in surgical techniques and ancillary technologies. From the early pioneering attempts in the 1950s by Ho Ju Lin, Cooley, and DeBakey, which preceded the advent of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), the development of perfusion, cerebral protection, and surgical techniques, along with the evolution of prosthetic grafts, has progressively enabled surgeons to address these challenging conditions with greater confidence. Despite these remarkable advancements, aortic arch surgery still remains one of the most technically challenging procedures in cardiac surgery. A major turning point was the introduction of the elephant trunk technique by Borst in 1983. This approach allowed for staged treatment of diffuse aneurysmal disease, including both degenerative and post-dissection cases, and reduced the overall surgical risk across multiple procedures. Initially met with skepticism, the technique has since been universally adopted by centers specializing in aortic pathology. At the same time, numerous modifications to the technique have emerged. Each modification has addressed specific technical challenges or enabled the integration of new technologies. The development of the Siena graft in the early 2000s was driven by the need to harness the growing potential of endovascular devices, which had been evolving since the 1990s, and to address critical technical issues. These included the use of multi-branched prostheses and the introduction of an anastomotic collar to facilitate secure distal anastomoses, even in less-than-ideal anatomical conditions. The design of the Siena graft, now widely adopted by most manufacturers for arch grafts, required close collaboration with industry partners to ensure a reliable product from its inception. Today, the Siena graft remains a highly relevant platform for the treatment of diffuse aneurysmal disease that requires the elephant trunk technique. This paper describes the evolution and design of the graft, the technical approach, including pitfalls and safeguards, and our clinical experience.
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.