Hybrid noncovered open stents in repair of DeBakey type 1 acute aortic dissections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The indications for use, evidence base and experience with the novel noncovered open hybrid surgical stents for acute type A aortic dissection repair for concurrent stabilization of the 'downstream' aorta remains limited. We review the evidence base and the development of these stents. METHODS: Data were collected from Pubmed/Medline literature search to develop and review the evidence base for safety and efficacy of non-covered surgical stents. Existing guidelines for use and developments were reviewed. RESULTS: A single randomized control trial and 4 single-centre studies were included in the review with a total worldwide experience of 241 patients. The deployment was easy and did not add significantly to the primary operation. The mortality and new stroke ranged from 6.3-18.7%. Safe and complete deployment was accomplished in 92-100%. There was no device-related reintervention. There was a significant improvement in malperfusion in over 90% of the cases with varying degrees of remodelling (60-90%) of the downstream aorta. CONCLUSIONS: Open noncovered stent grafts represent a major technical advancement as an adjunct procedure for acute dissection repairs, e.g. hemiarch repair. It has potential for wider use by non-aortic surgeons due to simplicity of technique. Limited safety and efficacy data confirm the device to be safe, feasible and reproducible with potential for wider adoption. However, long-term trial and registry data are required before recommendations for standard use outside of high-volume experienced aortic centres.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".