ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2025
Endovascular versus open revascularization for acute arterial occlusive mesenteric ischemia: a retrospective single center analysis.
Article in Langenbeck's archives of 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAcute arterial occlusive mesenteric ischemia (AAOMI) is a life-threatening emergency associated with high mortality rates. Revascularization is a key component of multimodal therapy; however, the optimal initial treatment strategy, open surgical (OR) versus endovascular revascularization (ER), remains a subject of ongoing debate. This study aimed to compare outcomes between open and endovascular revascularization in patients with AAOMI.
methodsThis retrospective single-center cohort study included all patients with AAOMI who underwent urgent revascularization between January 2004 and July 2024. Based on the initial revascularization method, patients were divided into two treatment groups: open surgical and endovascular. Outcomes included in-hospital mortality, bowel resection rate and extent, incidence of short bowel syndrome, and length of hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) stay.
resultsOf the 100 patients included, 79 were initially treated with open revascularization and 21 with endovascular revascularization. In-hospital mortality was 48.1% (38/79) of OR patients and 33.3% (7/21) of ER patients (p = 0.227). 42 patients (53.2%) with open surgical treatment required bowel resection, compared to 10 patients (47.6%) with endovascular-first revascularization (p = 0.651). The median extent of bowel resection was 69 cm in the OR group and 71 cm in the ER group (p = 0.350). No differences could be detected regarding short bowel syndrome. Median hospital stay was 15 days in the open surgical cohort vs. 11 days in the endovascular cohort (p = 0.484). Median ICU stay was 5 days in the OR group and 4 days in the ER group (p = 0.172).
conclusionOpen surgical and endovascular revascularization resulted in comparable outcomes regarding in-hospital mortality, bowel resection, short bowel syndrome, and length of hospital and ICU stay in this retrospective cohort. Treatment decisions should be individualized based on occlusion type, patient condition, and institutional expertise. Prospective multicenter studies are warranted to further refine optimal management strategies for AAOMI.
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.