Suppr超能文献

[颈动脉手术中记录体感诱发电位的益处及有效性]

[Benefits and effectiveness of recording somatosensory evoked potentials in surgery on the carotid artery].

作者信息

Uberrück T, Meyer L, Schmidt H, Gastinger I

机构信息

Otto-von-Guericke-Universität Magdeburg, Chirurgische Klinik, Magdeburg.

出版信息

Zentralbl Chir. 2004 Jun;129(3):172-7. doi: 10.1055/s-2004-822784.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Operative treatment of high-grade carotid stenosis is an established procedure. The question whether a temporary - either selective or routine - shunt is needed, is a matter of controversy, and the decision is based on a number of available monitoring procedures. Within the framework of quality assurance based on the regular collection of our own patient data, carotid thromboendarterectomy (TEA) with recording of somatosensory evoked potentials (SEP) was analysed for its effectiveness.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Two non-randomised groups of patients were analysed retrospectively: Group I: 99 carotid TEAs with no recording of SEP (1.1.99-31.12.99); Group II: 139 carotid TEAs with SEP recording (1.1.01-31.12.01). These two groups were unselected in terms of procedure, as also with regard to age, sex, stage or degree of carotid stenosis or surgeon, and were homogeneously distributed. A comparison was made of anaesthesia and operating times, shunt rate and the outcome of the two groups. Additionally, the two subgroups surgery with no shunt, and surgery with shunt, and the subgroups thromboendarterectomy with patchplasty (TEA) and eversion endarterectomy (EEA), were analysed.

RESULTS

A temporary shunt was employed in 41 (41.4 %) of the patients in Group I (no SEP recording) and in 16 (11.5 %) of those in Group II (SEP recording). The average operating time in Group II was 11.4 min shorter (p < 0.001) than in Group I. The average carotid clamping time in Group II was significantly reduced (by 4.2 min; p < 0.001), while the duration of anaesthesia prior to skin incision was increased by an average of 18.3 min (p < 0.001), and the overall duration of anaesthesia by an average of 15.8 min (p < 0.001). A comparison of the subgroups surgery with no shunt and surgery with shunt revealed - both in Group I and Group II - a significant prolongation of the anaesthesia time and operating time (p < 0.001). In both Groups I and II, the subgroup TEA revealed a significant prolongation of both the anaesthesia and operating times vis-à-vis EEA. The major stroke rate was 2.0 % in Group I and 1.4 % in Group II, and the minor stroke rate 3.0 in Group I and 3.6 % in Group II; no deaths were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

A reduction in the shunt rate to 11 % (by means of SEP) significantly decreased the average operating time (incision - suture) and the clamping time, with identical outcome in Groups I and II. Despite a reduction in the average incision-suture time in Group II (with SEP recording), the average overall operating time (anaesthesia time) was significantly increased due to the greater technical effort required. Carotid TEA with a selective shunt as determined by SEP is a high-cost procedure with no demonstrable benefit. At a stroke rate < 5 % and a need for stratification into several groups in accordance with the AHA classification, it is not possible to achieve adequate patient recruitment for a randomised analysis of outcome of the individual monitoring procedures. Alternative procedures are the routine use of a shunt and operation under regional anaesthesia.

摘要

背景

高级别颈动脉狭窄的手术治疗是一种既定的手术方法。是否需要临时分流(选择性或常规)存在争议,这一决定基于多种可用的监测程序。在基于定期收集我们自己患者数据的质量保证框架内,对记录体感诱发电位(SEP)的颈动脉血栓内膜切除术(TEA)的有效性进行了分析。

患者与方法

回顾性分析了两组非随机患者:第一组:99例未记录SEP的颈动脉TEA(1999年1月1日至1999年12月31日);第二组:139例记录SEP的颈动脉TEA(2001年1月1日至2001年12月31日)。这两组在手术方式、年龄、性别、颈动脉狭窄的阶段或程度以及外科医生方面均未进行选择,且分布均匀。比较了两组的麻醉时间、手术时间、分流率及结果。此外,还分析了无分流手术和有分流手术的两个亚组,以及血栓内膜切除术加补片成形术(TEA)和外翻内膜切除术(EEA)的亚组。

结果

第一组(未记录SEP)41例(41.4%)患者使用了临时分流,第二组(记录SEP)16例(11.5%)患者使用了临时分流。第二组的平均手术时间比第一组短11.4分钟(p<0.001)。第二组平均颈动脉夹闭时间显著缩短(4.2分钟;p<0.001),而皮肤切开前的麻醉时间平均增加18.3分钟(p<0.001),总麻醉时间平均增加15.8分钟(p<0.001)。无分流手术和有分流手术亚组的比较显示,在第一组和第二组中,麻醉时间和手术时间均显著延长(p<0.001)。在第一组和第二组中,TEA亚组的麻醉时间和手术时间相对于EEA均显著延长。第一组的主要卒中发生率为2.0%,第二组为1.4%;第一组的轻微卒中发生率为3.0%,第二组为3.6%;未观察到死亡病例。

结论

通过SEP将分流率降至11%显著缩短了平均手术时间(切开至缝合)和夹闭时间,第一组和第二组结果相同。尽管第二组(记录SEP)的平均切开至缝合时间缩短,但由于所需技术操作更多,总平均手术时间(麻醉时间)显著增加。根据SEP确定的选择性分流的颈动脉TEA是一种高成本手术,且无明显益处。在卒中发生率<5%且需要根据美国心脏协会(AHA)分类分为几个组的情况下,无法为个体监测程序的结果进行随机分析招募到足够的患者。替代方法是常规使用分流和在区域麻醉下进行手术。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验