Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41367376›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2025

Comparison of percutaneous vs. cutdown access for endovascular aortic repair in the treatment of type B aortic dissection: a meta-analysis.

Zhongyou Liang, Ziping Huang, Minyao Wu, Lidai Lin, Binyao Chen, Shan Yin, Huaicheng Li, Jieru Quan, Weiming Liang, Xiaolong Huang

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Zhongyou Liang *The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Liuzhou, Guangxi, China.
Ziping Huang *The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Liuzhou, Guangxi, China.
Minyao Wu *The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Liuzhou, Guangxi, China.
Lidai LinThe First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Liuzhou, Guangxi, China.
Binyao ChenThe First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Liuzhou, Guangxi, China.
Shan YinThe First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Liuzhou, Guangxi, China.
Huaicheng LiThe First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Liuzhou, Guangxi, China.
Jieru QuanSchool of Economics and Management, Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Liuzhou, Guangxi, China.
Weiming LiangThe First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Liuzhou, Guangxi, China.
Xiaolong HuangThe First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Guangxi University of Science and Technology, Liuzhou, Guangxi, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: This meta-analysis was designed to compare the safety and efficacy of percutaneous endovascular aortic repair (PEVAR) with endovascular aortic repair by cutdown access (CEVAR) in the treatment of TBAD. Materials and methods: Four databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) were carefully queried for articles comparing PEVAR and CEVAR in patients with TBAD. The search was performed from the foundation of the databases until March 31, 2025. Results: Totally 24 studies were included in this meta-analysis. The meta-analysis included a group of 28,263 patients diagnosed with TBAD, with 14,534 patients undergoing PEVAR and 13,729 patients undergoing CEVAR. In comparison to CEVAR, PEVAR resulted in a reduced hospital length of stay (MD = -2.16 days, 95% CI: -3.05 to -1.27, Conclusions: Compared to CEVAR, PEVAR was associated with a shorter hospital stay, reduced operative time, quicker postoperative recovery, lower rates of groin infections, fewer cardiac complications, and a diminished occurrence of lymphocele; however, it exhibited a higher incidence of pseudoaneurysm and an increased rate of surgical suture failure. PEVAR was a safe and effective method for the treatment of TBAD. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD420251110307, PROSPERO CRD420251110307.

Indexed as

aortic dissectioncutdownendovascular aneurysm repairmeta-analysispercutaneouspseudoaneurysm

Identifiers

PMID41367376
PMCPMC12682885

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.