ReviewAnnals of vascular diseases2026
Ligation Versus Repair of Isolated Traumatic Peripheral Venous Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Annals of vascular diseases, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There are no guidelines to suggest repair versus ligation for traumatic deep venous injuries. We aimed to compare the outcomes after reconstruction versus ligation of isolated traumatic venous injuries. This systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42019143136) included all literature reported on the management of isolated venous injuries in adult trauma patients, excluding case reports from 1950 to 2020. Primary outcomes were mortality and amputation, while compartment syndrome, chronic venous hypertension, deep venous thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism were the secondary outcomes. PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane database, and Web of Science were searched. Study selection and synthesis were done following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A total of 25 studies were included. All the studies were observational, with the majority being retrospective in nature. Results of our meta-analysis show that ligation is significantly associated with higher rates of amputation (odds ratio [OR] = 1.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.20-2.48, p = 0.003) and mortality (OR = 1.50, 95% CI = 1.09-2.06, p = 0.01), whereas there is no significant difference in the rates of chronic venous insufficiency, deep venous thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism. There is insufficient data to analyze various types of venous repair, as well as to account for clinical severity at the time of presentation. Our results favor repair over ligation.
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.