Lee Jae Hoon, Suh Bo Yang
Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Catholic University of Daegu School of Medicine, Daegu, Korea.
Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yeungnam University College of Medicine, Daegu, Korea.
Ann Surg Treat Res. 2014 Oct;87(4):192-6. doi: 10.4174/astr.2014.87.4.192. Epub 2014 Sep 25.
Comparative results of conventional carotid endarterectomy (cCEA) and eversion carotid endarterectomy (eCEA) have been reported in many studies. But in Korea, there have been no reports to compare the outcome of the two techniques. Thus, we investigated the results of eCEA compared to cCEA in Yeungnam University Medical Center.
A total of 120 subjects who underwent CEA were included in this study. Of them, cCEAs were performed in 63 patients and eCEAs were performed in 57 patients. We analyzed the results divided into the early (within 30 days after surgery), midterm (from 30 days up to 1 year after surgery) and late (over 1 year after surgery).
Mean age of the patients was 65.9 ± 7.1 years in cCEA group and 66.8 ± 7.7 years in eCEA group (P = 0.523). Carotid shunt frequency was higher in the cCEA group (39.7% vs. 19.3%, P = 0.015). There were no statistical differences in the early complications with the exception of a significantly higher risk for new brain lesions in the cCEA group (34.9% vs. 14.0%, P = 0.008). The frequency of complication was same between cCEA group and eCEA group in the midterm. Although there was no statistical significance, the frequency of late complications was higher in the cCEA group compared to eCEA group. Mean follow-up duration was 29.4 ± 23.5 months.
These data showed that eCEA was an acceptable procedure and had some advantage compared to cCEA in the aspect of the early and late complication.
许多研究报告了传统颈动脉内膜切除术(cCEA)和外翻式颈动脉内膜切除术(eCEA)的对比结果。但在韩国,尚无比较这两种技术疗效的报告。因此,我们在庆南大学医学中心研究了eCEA与cCEA相比的结果。
本研究纳入了120例行颈动脉内膜切除术的受试者。其中,63例患者接受了cCEA,57例患者接受了eCEA。我们将结果分为早期(术后30天内)、中期(术后30天至1年)和晚期(术后1年以上)进行分析。
cCEA组患者的平均年龄为65.9±7.1岁,eCEA组为66.8±7.7岁(P = 0.523)。cCEA组的颈动脉分流频率更高(39.7%对19.3%,P = 0.015)。除cCEA组新发脑损伤风险显著更高外(34.9%对14.0%,P = 0.008),早期并发症方面无统计学差异。中期cCEA组和eCEA组的并发症发生率相同。虽然无统计学意义,但cCEA组晚期并发症的发生率高于eCEA组。平均随访时间为29.4±23.5个月。
这些数据表明,eCEA是一种可接受的手术方法,在早期和晚期并发症方面与cCEA相比具有一定优势。