ArticleAnnals of surgical treatment and research2025
Long-term clinical outcomes of type 2 endoleak intervention and the crucial role of additional endoleak development after endovascular aneurysm repair: a single-center retrospective observational cohort study.
Article in Annals of surgical treatment and 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.
- Ensuring Reproducibility in Endovascular Aneurysm Repair: Clinical Impact of Prophylactic Branch Embolization in a Low-Volume Setting.Annals of vascular diseases · 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
Purpose: The primary objective of this study was to evaluate long-term outcomes in patients who underwent endovascular treatments for type II endoleaks (T2ELs) following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Methods: This single-center, retrospective study included patients who developed early T2EL after EVAR for abdominal aortic aneurysm. Patients were divided into those who did and did not receive intervention for T2EL. Study outcomes included 10-year overall survival (OS), open conversion-free survival, and T2EL regression rates without open conversion. Results: Of the 385 patients who underwent EVAR between January 2006 and December 2016, 65 (16.9%) had early T2EL. Of these, 22 (33.8%) underwent T2EL intervention and 43 (66.2%) were treated conservatively. Eight (12.3%) of the 65 patients required open conversion, with no significant difference in open conversion-free survival between the two groups (P = 0.080). T2EL regression occurred in 16 of 62 patients (25.8%), with no difference in T2EL closure rates between the groups (P = 0.755). Analysis of the 31 patients with sac growth showed no significant between-group differences in 10-year OS, open conversion-free survival, and T2EL regression rates, regardless of T2EL intervention. Cox regression analysis identified that the development of other types of endoleak was the only risk factor for open conversion. Conclusion: Interventions for T2EL did not improve OS rates, reduce open conversion rates, or increase T2EL closure rates, even in patients with sac growth. This study suggests that current T2EL interventions are not sufficiently effective, emphasizing the need to detect the development of other types of endoleak that may lead to rupture.
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.