Exploring aortic morphology and determining variable-distance insertion lengths for fluoroscopy-free resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA)

IF 6 1区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE World Journal of Emergency Surgery Pub Date : 2024-08-31 DOI:10.1186/s13017-024-00557-4
Jan C. van de Voort, Barbara B. Verbeek, Boudewijn L.S. Borger van der Burg, Rigo Hoencamp
{"title":"Exploring aortic morphology and determining variable-distance insertion lengths for fluoroscopy-free resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA)","authors":"Jan C. van de Voort, Barbara B. Verbeek, Boudewijn L.S. Borger van der Burg, Rigo Hoencamp","doi":"10.1186/s13017-024-00557-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is used to temporary control non-compressible truncal hemorrhage (NCTH) as bridge to definitive surgical treatment. The dependence on radiography for safe balloon positioning is one factor that limits the extended use of REBOA in civilian and military pre-hospital settings. We aimed to determine standardized sex and age-based variable-distance catheter insertion lengths for accurate REBOA placement without initial fluoroscopic confirmation. Contrast enhanced CT-scans from a representative sample of a Dutch non-trauma population were retrospectively analyzed. Intravascular distances were measured from the bilateral common femoral artery access points (FAAP) to the middle of the aortic occlusion zones and accompanying boundaries. Means and 95% confidence intervals for the distances from the FAAPs to the boundaries and mid-zone III were calculated for all (combined) sex and age-based subgroups. Optimal insertion lengths and potentially safe regions were determined for these groups. Bootstrap analysis was performed in combination with a 40-mm long balloon introduction simulation to determine error-rates and REBOA placement accuracy for the general population. In total, 1354 non-trauma patients (694 females) were included. Vascular distances increased with age and were longer in males. The iliofemoral trajectory was 7 mm longer on the right side. The optimal zone I catheter insertion length would be 430 mm. Optimal zone III catheter insertion lengths showed up to 30 mm difference, ranging between 234 and 264 mm. Statistically significant and potentially clinically relevant differences were observed between the anatomical distances and necessary introduction depths for each subgroup. This is the first study to compare aortic morphology and intravascular distances between combined sex and age-based subgroups. As zone III length was consistent, length variability and elongation seem to mainly originate in the iliofemoral trajectory and zone II. The optimal zone I catheter insertion length would be 430 mm. Optimal zone III catheter insertion ranged between 234 and 264 mm. These standardized variable-distance insertion lengths could facilitate safer fluoroscopy-free REBOA in austere, pre-hospital settings.","PeriodicalId":48867,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Emergency Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Emergency Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13017-024-00557-4","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is used to temporary control non-compressible truncal hemorrhage (NCTH) as bridge to definitive surgical treatment. The dependence on radiography for safe balloon positioning is one factor that limits the extended use of REBOA in civilian and military pre-hospital settings. We aimed to determine standardized sex and age-based variable-distance catheter insertion lengths for accurate REBOA placement without initial fluoroscopic confirmation. Contrast enhanced CT-scans from a representative sample of a Dutch non-trauma population were retrospectively analyzed. Intravascular distances were measured from the bilateral common femoral artery access points (FAAP) to the middle of the aortic occlusion zones and accompanying boundaries. Means and 95% confidence intervals for the distances from the FAAPs to the boundaries and mid-zone III were calculated for all (combined) sex and age-based subgroups. Optimal insertion lengths and potentially safe regions were determined for these groups. Bootstrap analysis was performed in combination with a 40-mm long balloon introduction simulation to determine error-rates and REBOA placement accuracy for the general population. In total, 1354 non-trauma patients (694 females) were included. Vascular distances increased with age and were longer in males. The iliofemoral trajectory was 7 mm longer on the right side. The optimal zone I catheter insertion length would be 430 mm. Optimal zone III catheter insertion lengths showed up to 30 mm difference, ranging between 234 and 264 mm. Statistically significant and potentially clinically relevant differences were observed between the anatomical distances and necessary introduction depths for each subgroup. This is the first study to compare aortic morphology and intravascular distances between combined sex and age-based subgroups. As zone III length was consistent, length variability and elongation seem to mainly originate in the iliofemoral trajectory and zone II. The optimal zone I catheter insertion length would be 430 mm. Optimal zone III catheter insertion ranged between 234 and 264 mm. These standardized variable-distance insertion lengths could facilitate safer fluoroscopy-free REBOA in austere, pre-hospital settings.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
探索主动脉形态并确定无透视复苏主动脉血管内球囊闭塞术(REBOA)的可变距离插入长度
主动脉血管内球囊闭塞复苏术(REBOA)用于暂时控制非可压缩性截动脉出血(NCTH),为最终手术治疗架起桥梁。在民用和军用院前环境中,REBOA 的广泛使用受到一个因素的限制,那就是球囊的安全定位依赖于放射成像。我们的目的是确定基于性别和年龄的标准化可变距离导管插入长度,以便在没有初始透视确认的情况下准确放置 REBOA。我们对来自荷兰非创伤人群的代表性样本的对比增强 CT 扫描进行了回顾性分析。测量了从双侧股总动脉入路点(FAAP)到主动脉闭塞区中间及其边界的血管内距离。计算了所有(合并的)性别和年龄亚组从股总动脉接入点到边界和III区中部的距离的平均值和95%置信区间。确定了这些分组的最佳插入长度和潜在安全区域。结合 40 毫米长球囊导入模拟进行了 Bootstrap 分析,以确定一般人群的误差率和 REBOA 置放准确性。共纳入 1354 名非创伤患者(694 名女性)。血管距离随年龄增长而增加,男性血管距离更长。右侧髂股动脉轨迹长 7 毫米。I 区最佳导管插入长度为 430 毫米。III 区最佳导管插入长度最多相差 30 毫米,介于 234 毫米和 264 毫米之间。每个亚组的解剖学距离和必要的导入深度之间都存在明显的统计学差异,并可能与临床相关。这是第一项比较不同性别和年龄亚组之间主动脉形态和血管内距离的研究。由于 III 区长度一致,长度变异和伸长似乎主要源于髂股径和 II 区。I 区导管的最佳插入长度为 430 毫米。III 区导管的最佳插入长度在 234 至 264 毫米之间。这些标准化的可变距离插入长度有助于在院前环境中进行更安全的无透视 REBOA。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
World Journal of Emergency Surgery
World Journal of Emergency Surgery EMERGENCY MEDICINE-SURGERY
CiteScore
14.50
自引率
5.00%
发文量
60
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊介绍: The World Journal of Emergency Surgery is an open access, peer-reviewed journal covering all facets of clinical and basic research in traumatic and non-traumatic emergency surgery and related fields. Topics include emergency surgery, acute care surgery, trauma surgery, intensive care, trauma management, and resuscitation, among others.
期刊最新文献
Effectiveness and safety of low molecular weight heparin in the management of acute pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis Exploring aortic morphology and determining variable-distance insertion lengths for fluoroscopy-free resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) Emergency robotic surgery: the experience of a single center and review of the literature Outcomes and prognosis of postpartum hemorrhage according to management protocol: an 11-year retrospective study from two referral centers. Strategies to prevent blood loss and reduce transfusion in emergency general surgery, WSES-AAST consensus paper.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1