FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2778995245> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2778995245 abstract "Abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) are a vascular condition with significant risk attached, particularly if they rupture. It is, therefore, critical to identify and repair these as an elective procedure before they rupture and require emergency surgery. Repair has traditionally been an open surgical technique that required a large incision across the abdomen. Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repairs (EVARs) are now a common alternative. In this procedure, the common femoral artery is exposed via a cut-down approach and a graft introduced to the aneurysm in this way. This review examines a totally percutaneous approach to EVAR. This technique gives a minimally invasive approach to femoral artery access that may reduce groin wound complication rates and improve recovery time. The technique may, however, be less applicable in people with, for example, groin scarring or arterial calcification. This is an update of the review first published in 2014.This review aims to compare the clinical outcomes of percutaneous access with surgical cut-down femoral artery access in elective bifurcated abdominal endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR).For this update the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched their Specialised Register (last searched October 2016) and CENTRAL (2016, Issue 9). We also searched clinical trials registries and checked the reference lists of relevant retrieved articles.We considered only randomised controlled trials. The primary intervention was a totally percutaneous endovascular repair. We considered all device types. We compared this against surgical cut-down femoral artery access endovascular repair. We only considered studies investigating elective repairs. We excluded studies reporting emergency surgery for a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm and those reporting aorto-uni-iliac repairs.Two review authors independently collected all data. Owing to the small number of trials identified we did not conduct any formal sensitivity analysis. Heterogeneity was not significant for any outcome.Two studies with a total of 181 participants met the inclusion criteria, 116 undergoing the percutaneous technique and 65 treated by cut-down femoral artery access. One study had a small sample size and did not adequately report method of randomisation, allocation concealment or pre-selected outcomes. The second study was a larger study with few sources of bias and good methodology.We observed no significant difference in mortality between groups, with only one mortality occurring overall, in the totally percutaneous group (risk ratio (RR) 1.50; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 36.18; 181 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Only one study reported aneurysm exclusion. In this study we observed only one failure of aneurysm exclusion in the surgical cut-down femoral artery access group (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.02; 151 participants; moderate-quality evidence). No wound infections occurred in the cut-down femoral artery access group or the percutaneous group across either study (moderate-quality evidence).There was no difference in major complication rate between cut-down femoral artery access and percutaneous groups (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.68; 181 participants; moderate-quality evidence); or in bleeding complications and haematoma (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.82; 181 participants; high-quality evidence).Only one study reported long-term complication rates at six months, with no differences between the percutaneous and cut-down femoral artery access group (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.34 to 3.15; 134 participants; moderate-quality evidence).We detected differences in surgery time, with percutaneous approach being significantly faster than cut-down femoral artery access (mean difference (MD) -31.46 minutes; 95% CI -47.51 minutes to -15.42 minutes; 181 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Only one study reported duration of ITU (intensive treatment unit) and hospital stay, with no difference found between groups.This review shows moderate-quality evidence of no difference between the percutaneous approach compared with cut-down femoral artery access group for short-term mortality, aneurysm exclusion, major complications, wound infection and long-term (six month) complications, and high-quality evidence for no difference in bleeding complications and haematoma. There was a difference in operating time, with moderate-quality evidence showing that the percutaneous approach was faster than the cut-down femoral artery access technique. We downgraded the quality of the evidence to moderate as a result of the limited number of studies, low event numbers and imprecision. As the number of included studies were limited, further research into this technique would be beneficial. The search identified one ongoing study, which may provide an improved evidence base in the future." @default.
• W2778995245 created "2018-01-05" @default.
• W2778995245 creator A5002852509 @default.
• W2778995245 creator A5044020926 @default.
• W2778995245 creator A5068789733 @default.
• W2778995245 creator A5086489345 @default.
• W2778995245 date "2017-02-21" @default.
• W2778995245 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W2778995245 title "Totally percutaneous versus surgical cut-down femoral artery access for elective bifurcated abdominal endovascular aneurysm repair" @default.
• W2778995245 cites W1582452676 @default.
• W2778995245 cites W1593776909 @default.
• W2778995245 cites W1893271372 @default.
• W2778995245 cites W1990510548 @default.
• W2778995245 cites W1999317498 @default.
• W2778995245 cites W2022758699 @default.
• W2778995245 cites W2028389109 @default.
• W2778995245 cites W2029134746 @default.
• W2778995245 cites W2033785695 @default.
• W2778995245 cites W2042595764 @default.
• W2778995245 cites W2050359592 @default.
• W2778995245 cites W2054435202 @default.
• W2778995245 cites W2071224726 @default.
• W2778995245 cites W2083044979 @default.
• W2778995245 cites W2083199869 @default.
• W2778995245 cites W2098220172 @default.
• W2778995245 cites W2115091885 @default.
• W2778995245 cites W2117204920 @default.
• W2778995245 cites W2121675740 @default.
• W2778995245 cites W2122348272 @default.
• W2778995245 cites W2125435699 @default.
• W2778995245 cites W2133735040 @default.
• W2778995245 cites W2140579637 @default.
• W2778995245 cites W2152879778 @default.
• W2778995245 cites W2154333241 @default.
• W2778995245 cites W2159513177 @default.
• W2778995245 cites W2195878538 @default.
• W2778995245 cites W2268065568 @default.
• W2778995245 cites W2462269062 @default.
• W2778995245 cites W4233916465 @default.
• W2778995245 cites W82937874 @default.
• W2778995245 cites W92912183 @default.
• W2778995245 doi "https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd010185.pub3" @default.
• W2778995245 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/6464496" @default.
• W2778995245 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28221665" @default.
• W2778995245 hasPublicationYear "2017" @default.
• W2778995245 type Work @default.
• W2778995245 sameAs 2778995245 @default.
• W2778995245 citedByCount "19" @default.
• W2778995245 countsByYear W27789952452018 @default.
• W2778995245 countsByYear W27789952452019 @default.
• W2778995245 countsByYear W27789952452020 @default.
• W2778995245 countsByYear W27789952452021 @default.
• W2778995245 countsByYear W27789952452022 @default.
• W2778995245 countsByYear W27789952452023 @default.
• W2778995245 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2778995245 hasAuthorship W2778995245A5002852509 @default.
• W2778995245 hasAuthorship W2778995245A5044020926 @default.
• W2778995245 hasAuthorship W2778995245A5068789733 @default.
• W2778995245 hasAuthorship W2778995245A5086489345 @default.
• W2778995245 hasBestOaLocation W27789952452 @default.
• W2778995245 hasConcept C126838900 @default.
• W2778995245 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2778995245 hasConcept C2776098176 @default.
• W2778995245 hasConcept C2776543907 @default.
• W2778995245 hasConcept C2779723990 @default.
• W2778995245 hasConcept C2779967601 @default.
• W2778995245 hasConcept C2779993416 @default.
• W2778995245 hasConcept C2780120127 @default.
• W2778995245 hasConcept C2780813298 @default.
• W2778995245 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2778995245 hasConceptScore W2778995245C126838900 @default.
• W2778995245 hasConceptScore W2778995245C141071460 @default.
• W2778995245 hasConceptScore W2778995245C2776098176 @default.
• W2778995245 hasConceptScore W2778995245C2776543907 @default.
• W2778995245 hasConceptScore W2778995245C2779723990 @default.
• W2778995245 hasConceptScore W2778995245C2779967601 @default.
• W2778995245 hasConceptScore W2778995245C2779993416 @default.
• W2778995245 hasConceptScore W2778995245C2780120127 @default.
• W2778995245 hasConceptScore W2778995245C2780813298 @default.
• W2778995245 hasConceptScore W2778995245C71924100 @default.
• W2778995245 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2778995245 hasLocation W27789952451 @default.
• W2778995245 hasLocation W27789952452 @default.
• W2778995245 hasLocation W27789952453 @default.
• W2778995245 hasLocation W27789952454 @default.
• W2778995245 hasOpenAccess W2778995245 @default.
• W2778995245 hasPrimaryLocation W27789952451 @default.
• W2778995245 hasRelatedWork W1980638767 @default.
• W2778995245 hasRelatedWork W2001477670 @default.
• W2778995245 hasRelatedWork W2044906405 @default.
• W2778995245 hasRelatedWork W2048744248 @default.
• W2778995245 hasRelatedWork W2049062976 @default.
• W2778995245 hasRelatedWork W2154353091 @default.
• W2778995245 hasRelatedWork W2166446701 @default.
• W2778995245 hasRelatedWork W2167845817 @default.
• W2778995245 hasRelatedWork W2605863730 @default.
• W2778995245 hasRelatedWork W3028613721 @default.
• W2778995245 hasVolume "2017" @default.
• W2778995245 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2778995245 isRetracted "false" @default.

• next