ReviewBMC nephrology2025
Prevailing insights into anastomotic angles of surgically created arteriovenous fistulas: a literature review.
Review in BMC nephrology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predicting computed tomography angiography-measured arteriovenous fistula anastomosis angles using intraoperative non-contrast measurements: a prospective validation study.Renal failure · 2026Article
- From Acute Thrombosis to Eccentric Neointima in Arteriovenous Fistula.Seminars in thrombosis and hemostasis · 2026Article
- An interpretable XGBoost model for predicting arteriovenous fistula dysfunction in end stage renal disease.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Turbulence drives arteriovenous remodeling: an experimentally validated multi-scale model of neointimal hyperplasia.Physics in medicine and biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveAn arteriovenous fistula (AVF) is the most common type of vascular access, given its low infection rate, few complications, good patency potential, and long service life. Although preferred for most patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), those undergoing dialysis continue to experience AVF surgical failures and complications, with 60% of AVFs failing to mature. The anastomotic angles chosen for AVF creation are usually ones that surgeons find easiest to manually control. At present, many sources have confirmed that variations in anastomotic angle culminate in differing geometric parameters of perianastomotic blood vessels, thus affecting the AVF maturation process.
methodsThis publication was intended to highlight the progress achieved with respect to AVF anastomotic angle conventions through collective outcomes of clinical analyses, basic research, computational fluid dynamics (CFD) studies, and VasQ external stent trials. The insights gained may well fuel clinical efforts to implement more durable blood channels in patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). For our purposes, we described anastomotic angles as acute (< 30°), intermediate (30-70°), or obtuse (> 70°), rather than invoking mathematical standards.
resultsIn clinical research, two studies support the acute angle, three studies support the intermediate angle, three studies support the obtuse angle. In CFD research, one article supports the acute angle, six articles support the intermediate angle, and one article supports obtuse angles.
conclusionsOur analysis demonstrates an intermediate angle of 30-70° would be an optimal angle for AVF anastomosis, according to the existing research results. VasQ external stent devices have yielded superior AVF maturity and patency by maintaining anastomosed arteries and veins at angles of 40-50°, resulting in improved patient outcomes clinically, which supports the use of the device in the clinical practice. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.