Jost Dominik, Unmuth Susanne Johanna, Meissner Helfried, Henn-Beilharz Albrecht, Henkes Hans, Hupp Thomas
Klinik für Gefäßchirurgie, Klinikum Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany.
Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012 Dec;60(8):517-24. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1311535. Epub 2012 Jul 12.
Associated with increasing use of carotid artery stenting (CAS), the occurrence of late complications is likely to rise. The surgical strategies of CAS complications like in-stent-restenosis (ISR) are not yet to be determined. Thus different situations require individual operative techniques. This study contains our experience in the operative management for significant recurrent carotid stenosis following angioplasty and stent placement. As a novel strategy, we report successful stent removal and endarterectomy with eversion technique (ECEA).
Four complete stent removals were performed in three patients with three different techniques and anesthesiological protocols (general anesthesia n = 1, regional anesthesia n = 3). First stent removal with excision of common carotid artery (CCA) and internal carotid artery (ICA) following interposition of CCA-ICA with Dacron graft (n = 1). Second carotid endarterectomy with stent removal followed by patch angioplasty (n = 2). Third stent removal and ECEA and thus biological reconstruction without synthetic material (n = 1). Mean operative time was 131 minutes (±19.25). Mean follow-up was 11.5 months (±7.7). As postoperative complications, one major bleeding, one transient neurologic deficit and one postoperative neck hematoma, requiring operative revision, occurred. During a 30-day follow-up, all patients made an uneventful recovery. There was no evidence of restenosis or neurological deficit during the following postoperative controls. A review and comparison of the current surgical management and strategies in the treatment of ISR was also performed (Pubmed).
Surgical treatment of ISR after CAS is beneficial but in literature infrequently reported. We could demonstrate in this study that even stent removal and ECEA is feasible and safe with durable outcome. The current strategies are therefore extended as well as the reported performance under regional anesthesia. However, surgical treatment in ISR remains a challenging option and larger series are highly recommended.
随着颈动脉支架置入术(CAS)使用的增加,晚期并发症的发生率可能会上升。CAS并发症如支架内再狭窄(ISR)的手术策略尚未确定。因此,不同情况需要个体化的手术技术。本研究包含了我们对血管成形术和支架置入术后严重复发性颈动脉狭窄的手术治疗经验。作为一种新策略,我们报告了成功的支架取出术及外翻式内膜切除术(ECEA)。
对3例患者采用3种不同技术和麻醉方案进行了4次完整的支架取出术(全身麻醉1例,区域麻醉3例)。第1次支架取出术是在用人造血管(Dacron)移植术连接颈总动脉(CCA)和颈内动脉(ICA)后,切除CCA和ICA(1例)。第2次是颈动脉内膜切除术加支架取出术,随后进行补片血管成形术(2例)。第3次是支架取出术和ECEA,从而实现无合成材料的生物重建(1例)。平均手术时间为131分钟(±19.25)。平均随访时间为11.5个月(±7.7)。术后并发症包括1例严重出血、1例短暂性神经功能缺损和1例术后颈部血肿,后者需要再次手术。在30天的随访中,所有患者均顺利康复。在随后的术后检查中,没有再狭窄或神经功能缺损的证据。还对当前治疗ISR的手术管理和策略进行了综述和比较(来自PubMed)。
CAS术后ISR的手术治疗是有益的,但在文献中报道较少。我们在本研究中证明,即使是支架取出术和ECEA也是可行且安全的,结果持久。因此,当前的策略以及所报道的区域麻醉下的手术操作都得到了扩展。然而,ISR的手术治疗仍然是一个具有挑战性的选择,强烈建议开展更大规模的系列研究。