Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40178402›Full record

Observational studyAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2025

Medium-term restenosis after carotid endarterectomy by patch type: a single-centre retrospective study comparing biological with synthetic patch materials.

M Power Foley, N Doolan, T Connelly, M P McMonagle

Abstract readObservational StudyComparative Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

M Power FoleyUniversity Hospital Waterford, Ireland.
N DoolanUniversity Hospital Waterford, Ireland.
T ConnellyUniversity Hospital Waterford, Ireland.
M P McMonagleUniversity Hospital Waterford, Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionCarotid endarterectomy (CEA) with patch angioplasty is associated with lower restenosis rates compared with primary closure alone. However, evidence regarding patch-material superiority in the mitigation against neointimal hyperplasia and restenosis is limited. This retrospective observational study investigated medium-term restenosis rates between commercially available biological and synthetic carotid patches.

methodsAll primary CEA with patch angioplasty performed between 2007 and 2019 at a single university hospital were identified from theatre records. Restenosis was defined using the European Society for Vascular Surgery duplex criteria, either moderate (50-69%, PSV >213cm/s) or critical (70-99%, PSV >274cm/s). Chi-square tests and Kaplan-Meier curves were used to compare restenosis rates between biological (bovine pericardium) and synthetic patches (Dacron, PFTE and polyester-urethane).

resultsOverall, 127 CEAs were included in the restenosis analysis. Bovine pericardium was the patch material used most frequently (60%,

conclusionsThese results indicate medium-term restenosis rates after CEA are similar between biological and synthetic patches. However, well-designed randomised control trials are required to definitively answer the question of which patch material is superior for carotid reconstruction.

Indexed as

Carotid StenosisEndarterectomy, CarotidGraft Occlusion, VascularAgedAged, 80 and overAngioplastyAnimalsCattleFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPericardiumRetrospective StudiesCarotid endarterectomyNeointimal hyperplasiaPatch angioplastyRestenosisVascular graft materials

Identifiers

PMID40178402
PMCPMC12400462

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.