Analysis of safety and efficacy of conservative treatment and endovascular treatment in patients with spontaneous isolated mesenteric artery dissection
Chen X., Xu L., Xu Z., Fan Z., Huang J., Li J.
Retrospective Study with a reported sample of 85, published in Front Surg (2022) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.
- Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
- Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
- Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
- Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
- Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.
- Study type
- Retrospective Study
- Journal
- Front Surg (2022)
- Reported sample size
- 85
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 36684275
- PMCID
- PMC9852537
- DOI
- 10.3389/fsurg.2022.944079
- Citations
- 2
Abstract (original English)
Background Spontaneous isolated superior mesenteric artery dissection (SISMAD) is a rare disease with abdominal pain as the main clinical manifestation, but its optimal treatment strategy has not yet been determined. Based on this, this study explored a safe and effective treatment method by analyzing and comparing the safety and efficacy of conservative treatment and endovascular treatment in SISMAD patients. Methods The clinical and imaging data and treatment effects of 85 patients with SISMAD who were admitted to the General Surgery Department of the 900th Hospital of the Joint Logistics Support Force of the Chinese People's Liberation Army from January 2008 to December 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Two groups were treated, the data of patients in conservative treatment group and endovascular treatment group were analyzed, and a safe and effective treatment method for SISMAD was discussed. Results The mean follow-up time was 36.58 ± 25.03 months. The success rate of interventional operation was 86.11% (31/36), and the operation failed because the guide wire could not enter the true lumen in four cases. One case was terminated due to poor physical condition of the patient who could not tolerate surgery. There were no significant differences in gender, body mass index, clinical manifestations, and past history between conservative treatment and endovascular treatment ( P
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
- • Without an adequate control group, treatment effects cannot be separated from other factors.
Evidence level
Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.