ReviewChinese journal of traumatology = Zhonghua chuang shang za zhi2026
Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta in trauma patients: Past, present, and future.
Review in Chinese journal of traumatology = Zhonghua chuang shang za zhi, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) has emerged as a critical intervention for managing severe hemorrhagic shock in trauma patients. By temporarily occluding the aorta, REBOA aims to stabilize hemodynamics and prevent cardiovascular collapse until definitive hemorrhage control can be achieved. However, the clinical efficacy and optimal use of REBOA remain subjects of ongoing debate. This narrative review synthesizes the latest evidence on clinical outcomes, complications, and patient selection to provide a comprehensive assessment of REBOA's role in trauma resuscitation. This review is based on a selective analysis of the current literature, including clinical studies, randomized controlled trials, and meta-analyses, to evaluate the benefits and risks associated with REBOA in trauma settings. While REBOA technology has advanced significantly and its use has expanded across trauma centers, evidence-based guidelines for its application remain limited. The optimal indications and target populations for REBOA have yet to be clearly defined. Recent studies, including the only randomized controlled trial on REBOA to date, suggest that its use in hemodynamically unstable patients does not confer a mortality benefit and may even increase mortality compared to standard care alone. Furthermore, REBOA is associated with substantial risks, including ischemia-reperfusion injury, acute kidney injury, arterial injury, arterial embolism, limb ischemia, and even amputations. These complications highlight the need for careful patient selection and procedural refinement. Current evidence does not support the routine use of REBOA in trauma patients with hemorrhagic shock. Further research is essential to identify specific subpopulations that may benefit from this intervention and to optimize its application to maximize survival while minimizing complications. Until more robust data are available, REBOA should be employed judiciously, with careful consideration of its risks and benefits in individual cases.
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.