颈动脉内膜切除术闭合时原发、补片和外翻。

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery Pub Date : 2023-04-01 DOI:10.23736/S0021-9509.23.12618-8
Ali F Aburahma
{"title":"颈动脉内膜切除术闭合时原发、补片和外翻。","authors":"Ali F Aburahma","doi":"10.23736/S0021-9509.23.12618-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":50245,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Primary versus patching versus eversion as carotid endarterectomy closure.\",\"authors\":\"Ali F Aburahma\",\"doi\":\"10.23736/S0021-9509.23.12618-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50245,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0021-9509.23.12618-8\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0021-9509.23.12618-8","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)后的闭合类型,是修补初级闭合还是外翻获得最佳效果,仍然存在一些争议。我们进行了PubMed文献综述检索,比较了过去40年来CEA补片、CEA原发闭合和CEA外翻,重点是随机对照试验、系统/荟萃分析和大型单中心或多中心研究。数据显示,常规颈动脉修补优于初次闭合(一级证据);然而,初级闭合CEA可用于>6 mm的大颈动脉(ICAs)。此外,选择性修补CEA缺乏一级证据支持。不同贴片材料(如涤纶、ACUSEAL、PTFE、心包贴片和静脉贴片等合成贴片)和外翻颈动脉内膜切除术(ECEA)与常规颈动脉内膜切除术(CCEA)的卒中/死亡率无显著差异。此外,CEA贴片与ECEA之间没有明显的再狭窄率;然而,初级闭合的CEA晚期再狭窄率较高。有1级证据支持CEA使用补丁或版本优于初级闭合,并且各种补丁的使用之间也没有显着差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Primary versus patching versus eversion as carotid endarterectomy closure.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
7.10%
发文量
204
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery publishes scientific papers on cardiac, thoracic and vascular surgery. Manuscripts may be submitted in the form of editorials, original articles, review articles, case reports, therapeutical notes, special articles and letters to the Editor. Manuscripts are expected to comply with the instructions to authors which conform to the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Editors by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (www.icmje.org). Articles not conforming to international standards will not be considered for acceptance.
期刊最新文献
Subclavian artery revascularization with subclavian-carotid transposition for TEVAR and non-TEVAR patients. Current perspectives in acute type B aortic dissections: a literature review. Long-term outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair for the treatment of descending thoracic aortic aneurysms: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Outcomes of Omniflow® II prosthesis used for revascularization in the femoral tract both in infected and non-infected setting. Frozen elephant trunk technique for aortic arch surgery: the Bordeaux University Hospital experience with Thoraflex hybrid prosthesis.
×
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