Karaolanis Georgios, Kostakis Ioannis D, Moris Demetrios, Palla Viktoria-Varvara, Moulakakis Konstantinos G
Vascular Unit, First Department of Surgery, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, "Laiko" General Hospital, Athens, Greece.
Second Department of Propedeutic Surgery, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, "Laiko" General Hospital, Athens, Greece.
Int J Angiol. 2018 Mar;27(1):13-22. doi: 10.1055/s-0037-1620241. Epub 2018 Jan 22.
The aim of the present study is to review the available data on suture-mediated closure devices (SMCDs) and fascia suture technique (FST), which are alternatives for minimizing the invasiveness of percutaneous endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (p-EVAR) and reduce the complications related to groin dissections. The Medline, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane library - Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were searched for publications regarding SMCD and FST between January 1999 and December 2016. We review 37 original articles, 30 referring to SMCDs (Prostar XL and Proglide), which included 3,992 patients, and 6 articles referring to FST, which include 426 patients. The two techniques are compared only in one article (100 patients). The two types of SMCDs were Prostar and Proglide. In most studies on SMCDs, the reported technical success rates were between 89 and 100%, but the complication rates varied greatly between 0 and 25%. Concerning FST, the technical success rates were also high, ranging between 87 and 99%. However, intraoperative complication rates ranged between 1.2 and 13%, whereas postoperative complication rates varied from 0.9 to 6.2% for the short-term and from 1.9 to 13.6% for the long-term. SMCDs and FST seem to be effective and simple methods for closing common femoral artery (CFA) punctures after p-EVAR. FST can reduce the access closure time and the procedural costs with a quite short learning curve, whereas it can work as a bailout procedure for failed SMCDs suture. The few failures of the SMCDs and FST that may occur due to bleeding or occlusion can easily be managed.
本研究的目的是回顾关于缝线介导闭合装置(SMCD)和筋膜缝合技术(FST)的现有数据,这两种方法是将经皮血管腔内主动脉瘤修复术(p-EVAR)侵入性降至最低及减少与腹股沟解剖相关并发症的替代方案。检索了1999年1月至2016年12月期间Medline、ClinicalTrials.gov和Cochrane图书馆——Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(CENTRAL)数据库中关于SMCD和FST的出版物。我们回顾了37篇原创文章,其中30篇涉及SMCD(Prostar XL和Proglide),包括3992例患者,6篇涉及FST,包括426例患者。仅在一篇文章(100例患者)中对这两种技术进行了比较。两种类型的SMCD分别是Prostar和Proglide。在大多数关于SMCD的研究中,报告的技术成功率在89%至100%之间,但并发症发生率差异很大,在0%至25%之间。关于FST,技术成功率也很高,在87%至99%之间。然而,术中并发症发生率在1.2%至13%之间,短期术后并发症发生率在0.9%至6.2%之间,长期术后并发症发生率在1.9%至13.6%之间。SMCD和FST似乎是p-EVAR术后闭合股总动脉(CFA)穿刺的有效且简单的方法。FST可以缩短入路闭合时间和手术成本,学习曲线相当短,并且它可以作为SMCD缝线失败时的补救措施。因出血或闭塞可能发生的SMCD和FST的少数失败情况很容易处理。