2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2019.08.095
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Total Arch Replacement via Single Upper-Hemisternotomy Approach in Patients With Type A Dissection

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
30
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(32 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
2
30
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The amount of blood loss, the transfusion rate, and the intubation time were significantly reduced in the upper sternotomy group compared with the full sternotomy group, and no significant differences were observed in 30-day mortality or stroke rates. These results were comparable to those of Jiang and colleagues, 5 who also demonstrated that ventilation time and the amount of chest tube drainage were lower in the upper sternotomy group than in the full sternotomy group. Likewise, their patients in the upper sternotomy group did not show any significant advantage with respect to length of stay, reoperation for bleeding, or in-hospital mortality; rather, the primary identified benefit was a more cosmetic incision.…”
supporting
confidence: 88%
“…The amount of blood loss, the transfusion rate, and the intubation time were significantly reduced in the upper sternotomy group compared with the full sternotomy group, and no significant differences were observed in 30-day mortality or stroke rates. These results were comparable to those of Jiang and colleagues, 5 who also demonstrated that ventilation time and the amount of chest tube drainage were lower in the upper sternotomy group than in the full sternotomy group. Likewise, their patients in the upper sternotomy group did not show any significant advantage with respect to length of stay, reoperation for bleeding, or in-hospital mortality; rather, the primary identified benefit was a more cosmetic incision.…”
supporting
confidence: 88%
“…After reviewing shreds of evidence, a total of 35 studies including 3211 patients were entered into the quantitative analysis (Figure 1). 11–44 The median size of reviewed reports was 72 patients (interquartile range 38 – 122). The majority of studies were performed in Chinese institutions, 19 studies including 2026 patients.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Of 64 studies reporting outcomes of patients included in this report 13–76 . The proportions of studies from Asia, Europe, and North America were 54.7%, 31.3%, and 10.9%, respectively.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%