Suppr超能文献

主动脉缩窄合并室间隔缺损的一期修复与二期修复

Single-stage versus 2-stage repair of coarctation of the aorta with ventricular septal defect.

作者信息

Walters Henry L, Ionan Constantine E, Thomas Ronald L, Delius Ralph E

机构信息

Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Children's Hospital of Michigan, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Mich 48201, USA.

出版信息

J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2008 Apr;135(4):754-61. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2007.12.008.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The results of single-stage and 2-stage repair of coarctation of the aorta with ventricular septal defect have improved, but the optimal treatment strategy remains controversial. This study compares our results with these 2 approaches.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of 46 patients, 23 with single-stage repair and 23 with 2-stage repair, who underwent completed surgical treatment of coarctation of the aorta with a ventricular septal defect at the Children's Hospital of Michigan between March 1994 and June 2006.

RESULTS

The average number of operations in the single-stage group was 1.5 +/- 0.6, and in the 2-stage group it was 2.2 +/- 0.4 (P < or = .0001). Postoperative complications were similar, except for the number of planned reoperations to perform delayed sternal closure in the single-stage operation (n = 7) compared with the 2-stage operation (n = 1, P = .023). The patient age in the single-stage group at the time of discharge (completed repair time) was a median of 39.0 days (range, 19-250 days) compared with a median of 113.0 days (range, 26-1614 days) in the 2-stage group after stage 2 (P < or = .0001). Freedom from cardiac reintervention was 89.8% in the single-stage group versus 84.9% in the 2-stage group (P = .33). The hospital mortality was 4.4% (1 patient) in each group. The actuarial survival rate was 95.7% in the single-stage group versus 90.6% in the 2-stage group (P = .38).

CONCLUSIONS

The advantages of single-stage over 2-stage repair of a ventricular septal defect with coarctation of the aorta include an earlier age at completion of repair, fewer operations, and fewer incisions. Postoperative complications and hospital mortality are similar. The one disadvantage of a single-stage repair was the increased need for delayed sternal closure compared with the 2-stage approach.

摘要

目的

主动脉缩窄合并室间隔缺损的一期和二期修复结果有所改善,但最佳治疗策略仍存在争议。本研究比较了我们采用这两种方法的结果。

方法

我们对1994年3月至2006年6月在密歇根儿童医院接受主动脉缩窄合并室间隔缺损完整手术治疗的46例患者进行了回顾性分析,其中23例行一期修复,23例行二期修复。

结果

一期修复组的平均手术次数为1.5±0.6次,二期修复组为2.2±0.4次(P≤0.0001)。术后并发症相似,但一期手术中为延迟关闭胸骨而行计划性再次手术的次数(n = 7)与二期手术(n = 1,P = 0.023)相比有所不同。一期修复组出院时(完成修复时间)的患者年龄中位数为39.0天(范围19 - 250天),而二期修复组在二期手术后的年龄中位数为113.0天(范围26 - 1614天)(P≤0.0001)。一期修复组免于心脏再次干预的比例为89.8%,二期修复组为84.9%(P = 0.33)。每组的医院死亡率均为4.4%(1例患者)。一期修复组的精算生存率为95.7%,二期修复组为90.6%(P = 0.38)。

结论

主动脉缩窄合并室间隔缺损的一期修复优于二期修复的优点包括修复完成时年龄更小、手术次数更少和切口更少。术后并发症和医院死亡率相似。一期修复的一个缺点是与二期修复相比,延迟关闭胸骨的需求增加。

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