ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2025
Impact of right ventricular incision extent on early outcomes after tetralogy of Fallot repair: a two-center retrospective cohort study.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The role of right ventricular (RV) incision during tetralogy of Fallot (TOF) repair remains controversial. Although RV incisions facilitate the closure of ventricular septal defects (VSDs) and relieve right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) obstruction, concerns remain regarding late ventricular dysfunction. Alternative approaches that limit or avoid RV incision have been advocated; however, most evidence derives from single-center retrospective reports, leaving the clinical impact uncertain. Method: We retrospectively analyzed 237 patients who underwent repair of TOF at two tertiary centers between 2015 and 2019. Patients were stratified into three groups: Group 1 (no RV incision), Group 2 (incision confined to the infundibulum), and Group 3 (incision extending beyond the infundibulum). The primary endpoint was major adverse events (MAEs, defined as in-hospital mortality, need for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, malignant arrhythmias, delayed sternal closure, reoperation requiring cardiopulmonary bypass, and reintubation). Secondary endpoints included length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, total hospital stay, ventilation duration, 24-h drainage output, and other postoperative complications. Both crude and propensity score-matched (PSM) analyses were performed. Results: In crude analyses, delayed sternal closure was more frequent in Group 2 but did not reach statistical significance ( Conclusion: The extent of RV incision during repair of TOF was associated with distinct perioperative risk profiles; however, rates of major adverse events did not differ significantly after adjustment for baseline imbalances. The more favorable outcomes observed in patients without an RV incision primarily reflected anatomical advantages rather than an intrinsic superiority of the surgical approach. These findings suggest that RV incision should be minimized when technically feasible while ensuring adequate relief of RVOT to ensure procedural safety. Prospective multicenter studies with long-term, imaging-based follow-up are required to determine the impact of incision strategy on RV function, pulmonary regurgitation, and late outcomes.
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.