Suppr超能文献

作为颈动脉内膜切除术闭合方式的直接缝合术与补片修补术与外翻缝合术的比较

Primary versus patching versus eversion as carotid endarterectomy closure.

作者信息

Aburahma Ali F

机构信息

Department of Surgery, Faculty of Surgery, West Virginia University, Charleston, WV, USA -

出版信息

J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 2023 Apr;64(2):174-183. doi: 10.23736/S0021-9509.23.12618-8. Epub 2023 Feb 6.

Abstract

The type of closure after carotid endarterectomy (CEA), whether with patching primary closure or eversion resulting optimal results, remains somewhat controversial. We conducted a PubMed literature review search comparing CEA with patching versus CEA with primary closure versus eversion CEA over the past four decades with emphasis on randomized controlled trials and systematic/meta-analysis and large single center or multicenter studies. The data showed that routine carotid patching can be recommended over primary closure (level 1 evidence); however, CEA with primary closure can be used for large internal carotid arteries (ICAs)>6 mm. Moreover, selective patching with CEA lacks level 1 evidence support. No significant differences were noted among the various patch materials used (e.g., synthetic patches like dacron, ACUSEAL, PTFE, pericardial patches and vein patches) and in the stroke/death rates between eversion carotid endarterectomy (ECEA) and conventional CEA (CCEA) with patching. In addition, no significant restenosis rates were noted between CEA with patching and ECEA; however, CEA with primary closure had higher late restenosis rates. There is level 1 evidence to support CEA with patching or eversion over primary closure and there is also no significant difference between the use of various patches.

摘要

颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)后的闭合方式,无论是采用补片修补、一期缝合还是外翻缝合,哪种能产生最佳效果,仍存在一定争议。我们在PubMed上进行了文献综述搜索,比较了过去四十年来采用补片修补的CEA、一期缝合的CEA和外翻缝合的CEA,重点关注随机对照试验、系统评价/荟萃分析以及大型单中心或多中心研究。数据表明,与一期缝合相比,推荐常规使用颈动脉补片(1级证据);然而,对于内径大于6mm的颈内动脉(ICA),可采用一期缝合的CEA。此外,CEA选择性补片缺乏1级证据支持。在使用的各种补片材料(如涤纶、ACUSEAL、聚四氟乙烯等合成补片、心包补片和静脉补片)之间,以及外翻颈动脉内膜切除术(ECEA)和采用补片修补的传统CEA(CCEA)之间的卒中/死亡率方面,未发现显著差异。此外,补片修补的CEA和ECEA之间的再狭窄率也无显著差异;然而,一期缝合的CEA晚期再狭窄率较高。有1级证据支持补片修补或外翻缝合的CEA优于一期缝合,并且使用各种补片之间也无显著差异。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验