DuBose Joseph, Recinos Gustavo, Teixeira Pedro G R, Inaba Kenji, Demetriades Demetrios
Division of Trauma and Critical Care at the Los Angeles County, University of Southern California Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA.
J Trauma. 2008 Dec;65(6):1561-6. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e31817fd954.
The role of endovascular techniques in the treatment of traumatic vascular injuries, including injury to the internal carotid artery, continues to evolve. Despite growing experience with the usage of these techniques in the setting of artherosclerotic disease, published results in traumatic carotid injuries remain sporadic and confined to case reports and case series.
We conducted a review of the medical literature from 1990 to the present date using the Pubmed and OVID Medline databases to search for all reports documenting the use of endovascular stenting for the treatment of carotid injuries. Thirty-one published reports were analyzed to abstract data regarding mechanism, location, and type of injury; use and type of anticoagulation used in conjunction with stenting; type and timing of radiographic and clinical follow-up; and radiographic and clinical outcomes.
The use of endovascular stenting for the treatment of internal carotid injuries was reported for only 113 patients from 1994 to the present date. Stenting was most commonly used after a blunt mechanism of injury (77.0%). The injury types treated by stenting included pseudoaneurysm (60.2%), arteriovenous fistula (16.8%), dissection (14.2%), partial transection (4.4%), occlusion (2.7%), intimal flap (0.9%), and aneurysm (0.9%). Initial endovascular stent placement was successful in 76.1% of patients. Radiographic and clinical follow-up periods ranging from 2 weeks to 2 years revealed a follow-up patency of 79.6%. No stent-related mortalities were reported. New neurologic deficits after stent placement occurred in 3.5%.
Endovascular treatment of traumatic internal carotid artery injury continues to evolve. Early results are encouraging, but experience with this modality and data on late follow-up are still very limited. A large prospective randomized trial is warranted to further define the role of this treatment modality in the setting of trauma.
血管内技术在治疗包括颈内动脉损伤在内的创伤性血管损伤中的作用不断演变。尽管在动脉粥样硬化疾病背景下使用这些技术的经验不断增加,但关于创伤性颈动脉损伤的已发表结果仍然零散,仅限于病例报告和病例系列。
我们使用PubMed和OVID Medline数据库对1990年至今的医学文献进行了综述,以搜索所有记录使用血管内支架治疗颈动脉损伤的报告。对31篇已发表的报告进行分析,提取有关损伤机制、部位和类型;与支架置入联合使用的抗凝药物的使用及类型;影像学和临床随访的类型及时间;以及影像学和临床结果的数据。
从1994年至今,仅报道了113例使用血管内支架治疗颈内动脉损伤的患者。支架置入最常用于钝性损伤机制后(77.0%)。支架治疗的损伤类型包括假性动脉瘤(60.2%)、动静脉瘘(16.8%)、夹层(14.2%)、部分横断(4.4%)、闭塞(2.7%)、内膜瓣(0.9%)和动脉瘤(0.9%)。76.1%的患者首次血管内支架置入成功。影像学和临床随访期从2周至2年不等,随访通畅率为79.6%。未报告与支架相关的死亡。支架置入后出现新的神经功能缺损的比例为3.5%。
创伤性颈内动脉损伤的血管内治疗仍在不断发展。早期结果令人鼓舞,但这种治疗方式的经验以及晚期随访数据仍然非常有限。有必要进行一项大型前瞻性随机试验,以进一步明确这种治疗方式在创伤情况下的作用。