Suppr超能文献

颈动脉内膜切除术伴一期缝合:结局分析及文献回顾。

Carotid endarterectomy with primary closure: analysis of outcomes and review of the literature.

机构信息

Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, USA.

出版信息

Neurosurgery. 2012 Mar;70(3):646-54; discussion 654-5. doi: 10.1227/NEU.0b013e3182351de0.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Despite abundant published support of patch angioplasty during carotid endarterectomy (CEA), primary closure is still widely used. The reasons underlying the persistence of primary closure are not quite evident in the literature.

OBJECTIVE

To present our experience with primary closure in CEA, and provide a rationale for its persistent wide use.

METHODS

Medical records of all patients undergoing CEA by the senior author (R.F.) were retrospectively reviewed. Follow-up was supplemented with a telephone interview and completion of a structured questionnaire. A review of the current literature was performed.

RESULTS

From 1998 to 2010, the senior author performed 111 CEAs. Average cross-clamp time was 33 ± 11 minutes. Postoperative complications included 1 non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction and 2 strokes. No deaths, cranial-nerve deficits, or acute reocclusions were observed. After a mean follow-up of 64.6 months (7170.6 case-months), there were 3 contralateral strokes and 7 deaths. There were no ipsilateral strokes or restenoses >50%. Follow-up medication compliance was 94.6% for antiplatelet agents and 91.9% for statins. The outcomes of the current study were comparable to those of the available trials comparing patch angioplasty with primary closure. A careful evaluation of the literature revealed a number of reasons potentially explaining the persistent use of patch angioplasty.

CONCLUSION

In conjunction with contemporary medical management, primary closure during CEA may yield results comparable or superior to patch angioplasty. Advantages of primary closure include shorter cross-clamp times and elimination of graft-specific complications.

摘要

背景

尽管有大量发表的文献支持颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)中使用补片血管成形术,但仍广泛采用直接缝合。在文献中,直接缝合持续存在的原因尚不清楚。

目的

介绍我们在 CEA 中使用直接缝合的经验,并为其持续广泛应用提供依据。

方法

回顾性分析高级作者(R.F.)进行的所有 CEA 患者的病历。通过电话访谈和完成结构化问卷来补充随访。对当前文献进行了综述。

结果

1998 年至 2010 年,高级作者共进行了 111 例 CEA。平均夹闭时间为 33±11 分钟。术后并发症包括 1 例非 ST 段抬高型心肌梗死和 2 例中风。未观察到死亡、颅神经损伤或急性再闭塞。平均随访 64.6 个月(7170.6 个病例月)后,有 3 例对侧中风和 7 例死亡。同侧无中风或再狭窄>50%。抗血小板药物和他汀类药物的随访用药依从率分别为 94.6%和 91.9%。本研究的结果与比较补片血管成形术与直接缝合的现有试验结果相当。对文献的仔细评估揭示了一些可能解释补片血管成形术持续应用的原因。

结论

在结合当代医学管理的情况下,CEA 中使用直接缝合可能会产生与补片血管成形术相当或更优的结果。直接缝合的优点包括缩短夹闭时间和消除移植物特异性并发症。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验