Huizing Eline, Vos Cornelis G, Hulsebos Robin G, van den Akker Peter J, Borst Gert Jan de, Ünlü Çağdaş
Department of Surgery, Northwest Clinics Alkmaar, Alkmaar, The Netherlands.
Department of Surgery, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Surg J (N Y). 2018 Jun 15;4(2):e96-e101. doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1655757. eCollection 2018 Apr.
Guidelines recommend routine patching to prevent restenosis following carotid endarterectomy, mainly based on studies performed many years ago with different perioperative care and medical treatment compared with current standards. Aim of the present study was to compare primary closure (PRC) versus patch closure (PAC) in a contemporary cohort of patients. Consecutive patients treated by carotid endarterectomy for symptomatic stenosis between January 2006 and April 2016 were retrospectively analyzed. Primary outcome was restenosis at 6 weeks and 1 year and occurrence of ipsilateral stroke. Secondary outcomes were mortality, complications, and reintervention rates. Five hundred carotid artery endarterectomies were performed. Fifty-nine patients were excluded because eversion endarterectomy was performed or because they were asymptomatic. PRC was performed in 349 and PAC in 92 patients. Restenosis at 6 weeks was 6.0% in the PAC group versus 3.0% in the PRC group ( = 0.200). Restenosis at 1 year was 31.6 versus 14.1%, respectively ( = 0.104). No difference was found for stroke (3.4 vs 1.1%, = 0.319), death (1.1 vs 0.0%, = 0.584), or other complications (1.1 vs 0.0%, = 0.584), respectively. It remains unclear whether routine patching should be recommended for all patients. A strategy of selective patching compared with routine patching, based on internal carotid artery diameter and other patient characteristics, deserves further investigation.
指南推荐常规使用补片以预防颈动脉内膜切除术后再狭窄,这主要基于多年前开展的研究,这些研究的围手术期护理和药物治疗与当前标准有所不同。本研究的目的是在当代患者队列中比较一期缝合(PRC)与补片修补(PAC)。
对2006年1月至2