Department of Cardiology, Union Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, P. R. China.
Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Union Hospital, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, P. R. China.
J Invest Surg. 2021 Apr;34(4):467-472. doi: 10.1080/08941939.2019.1645247. Epub 2019 Aug 1.
Few comparative studies have focused on the advantages and disadvantages of transthoracic device closure, transcatheter device closure, and surgical repair via right submammary thoracotomy for restrictive ventricular septal defect (VSD). In this article, we compared the safety, efficacy, and clinical effects of these three treatments. The clinical data of 192 pediatric patients with a restrictive VSD in our hospital from January 2017 to May 2018 were retrospectively collected and analyzed. According to the different treatments, the patients were divided into three groups (the surgical and device groups). There was no significant difference in the demographic characteristics, VSD size, mean pulmonary artery pressure, or cardiothoracic ratio. In addition, there were significant differences in the duration of mechanical ventilation, operation, hospitalization, and ICU stay between the two device groups and the surgical group, but there were no significant differences between the two device groups. : Transthoracic device closure, transcatheter device closure, and surgical repair via right submammary thoracotomy for restrictive VSD repair are all safe and feasible. These three treatments have their own disadvantages and advantages and should be selected according to individual patients.
对于限制型室间隔缺损(VSD),经胸器械闭合、经导管器械闭合和经右腋下小切口外科修复的优缺点,鲜有比较研究关注。本文比较了这三种治疗方法的安全性、疗效和临床效果。回顾性收集分析 2017 年 1 月至 2018 年 5 月我院 192 例小儿限制型 VSD 的临床资料,根据不同治疗方法分为三组(手术和器械组)。三组患者在人口统计学特征、VSD 大小、平均肺动脉压或心胸比方面无显著差异。此外,两组器械组与手术组之间机械通气时间、手术时间、住院时间和 ICU 住院时间均有显著差异,但两组器械组之间无显著差异。结论:经胸器械闭合、经导管器械闭合和经右腋下小切口外科修复限制型 VSD 均安全可行。这三种治疗方法各有优缺点,应根据患者个体情况选择。