ObjectiveTo analyze the effectiveness of in vitro fenestration versus bypass surgery techniques in the treatment of type B aortic dissection involving the left subclavian artery by thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR).MethodsAmong the 53 patients with type B aortic dissection involving the left subclavian artery admitted to our center from January 2017 to October 2020, 23 underwent in vitro fenestration + TEVAR (a fenestration group with 18 males and 5 females aged 53.6±5.3 years), and 30 patients underwent left common carotid artery-left subclavian artery bypass + TEVAR (a bypass group with 24 males and 6 females aged 51.8±3.8 years). The effectiveness and safety between the two groups were compared.ResultsThe surgical success rate was 100.0% in both groups. And there was no death within postoperative 30 days and during the follow-up. There was no endoleak immediately postoperatively and during 1-year follow-up in the two groups. The operation time and hospitalization expenses in the fenestration group was less or shorter than those in the bypass group (P<0.05). The reduction in blood pressure of the left upper limb in the fenestration group was greater than that in the bypass group (P<0.05). There was no symptom of left upper limb ischemia, dizziness or hoarseness in both groups.ConclusionThe two methods of reconstruction of the left subclavian artery are safe and effective. In vitro fenestration can reduce surgical trauma and costs, and bypass surgery can provide better forward blood flow for the left subclavian artery.
ObjectiveTo investigate the clinical effect of in situ fenestration combined with chimney technique in the treatment of aortic dissection involving left common carotid artery.MethodsFrom January 2012 to June 2019, 53 patients with aortic dissection involving left common carotid artery were selected. There were 21 patients in the test group, including 14 males and 7 females, with an average age of 57.2±11.2 years; there were 32 patients in the control group, including 20 males and 12 females, with an average age of 56.7±12.1 years. In the test group, the left subclavian branch was reconstructed by in situ fenestration and the left common carotid artery was reconstructed by chimney technique. In the control group, the left common carotid artery was reconstructed by hybrid operation. The clinical data of the patients were compared.ResultsThe operation time of the test group was significantly longer than that of the control group (151.8±35.2 min vs. 101.3±29.6 min, P=0.00). The patients in the two groups were followed up for 6-20 months. There was no significant difference in the incidence of pulmonary infection, stroke, steal blood syndrome, false lumen thrombosis or internal leakage between the two groups (P>0.05). The diameters of the distal and proximal ends of the true cavity in the test group increased significantly compared with those in the control group (P<0.05).ConclusionIn situ fenestration combined with chimney technique is an effective method for the treatment of aortic dissection involving left common carotid artery, which is worthy of further clinical promotion.
Objective To compare endoscopic sinius surgery plus middle meatus fenestration with endoscopic sinius surgery plus middle and inferior meatus fenestration for fungus ball maxillary sinusitis. Methods Applying a prospective randomized controlled trial, 80 patients with fungal ball maxillary sinusitis from January, 2010 to March, 2011 were collected and then divided into two groups, including experiment (40 cases) and control groups (40 cases). The trial group received endoscopic sinius surgery plus middle and inferior meatus fenestration, which the control group received endoscopic sinius surgery plus middle meatus fenestration. Then a follow-up was conducted from the end of surgery to February 28th, 2013. All patients took subjective and objective assessment before and after the surgery, including VAS, SNOT-20, Lund-Mackay CT system scores and Lund-Kennedy endoscopic mucosal score. Results with the trial group was superior to the control group in VAS score, SNOT rating and Lund-Kennedy mucosa score 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years after surgery (Plt;0.01). Lund-Mackay CT score of the control group was significantly higher than the trial group after 1 year of surgery (Plt;0.01). According to the Haikou standard to assess the efficacy of surgery, we found that the total effectiveness rate of the trial group (100.0%; recovery: 36 cases; improved: 4 cases) was higher than that of the control group (87.5%; recovery: 28 cases; improved: 4 cases), with a significant difference (P=0.021). Conclusion Endoscopic sinius surgery plus middle and inferior meatus fenestration with a lower reoccurrence rate is superior to endoscopic sinius surgery plus middle meatus fenestration for fungus ball maxillary sinusitis in clinical efficacy.
ObjectiveTo report a simple and safe method for in situ fenestration of left subclavian artery in thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR).MethodsTwenty-eight patients received in situ fenestration of left subclavian artery in TEVAR from June 2018 to May 2019 in our center, including 23 males and 5 females at an average age of 57.7±9.6 years. Among them, 12 patients used adjustable sheath or guiding catheter (a group A) and 16 patients used "J. D"technique (a group B). The clinical efficacy of the two groups was compared.ResultsIn the group A, 1 patient failed to receive fenestration and was transferred to the chimney technique. In the group B, 1 patient due to the traction system shift during operation, was completed by traditional adjustable sheath puncture. The group B had shorter alignment-perforation time and trigger time and less complications. There was no significant difference in endoleak during short-term follow-up between the two groups.ConclusionThe "J. D" technique is simple, safe and easy to obtain materials. It effectively reduces the risk caused by difficult sheath alignment during the in situ fenestration of the left subclavian artery. Although the results of recent follow-up are not significantly different from traditional methods, it still needs to accumulate the cases to observe the possible risks and difficulties.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the clinical value of in vitro fenestration and branch stent repair in the treatment of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm in visceral artery area assisted by 3D printing.MethodsThe clinical data of 7 patients with thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm involving visceral artery at the Department of Vascular Surgery, Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University from March 2016 to May 2019 were analyzed retrospectively. There were 5 males and 2 females with an average age of 70.2±3.9 years. Among them 4 patients had near-renal abdominal aortic aneurysm, 3 had thoracic aortic aneurysm, 4 had asymptomatic aneurysm, 2 had acute symptomatic aneurysm and 1 had threatened rupture of aneurysm. According to the preoperative CT measurement and 3D printing model, fenestration technique was used with Cook Zenith thoracic aortic stents, and branch stents were sewed on the main stents in vitro, and then the stents were modified by beam diameter technique for intracavitary treatment.ResultsAll the 7 patients completed the operation successfully, and a total of 18 branch arteries were reconstructed. The success rate of surgical instrument release was 100.0%. The average operation time was 267.0±38.5 min, the average intraoperative blood loss was 361.0±87.4 mL and the average hospital stay was 16.0±4.2 d. Immediate intraoperative angiography showed that the aneurysms were isolated, and the visceral arteries were unobstructed. Till May 2019, there was no death, stent displacement, stent occlusion, ruptured aneurysm or loss of visceral artery branches. Conclusion3D printing technology can completely copy the shape of human artery, intuitively present the anatomical structure and position of each branch of the artery, so that the fenestration technique is more accurate and the treatment scheme is more optimized.
To compare the effectiveness of microdiscectomy and macrodiscectomy on the single-level lumbar disc protrusion (LDP). Methods Between November 2002 and October 2005, 241 patients with LDP underwent 2 surgical procedures: microdiscectomy (group A, 93 cases) and macrodiscectomy (group B, 148 cases). All patients had singlelevel LDP. In group A, there were 51 males and 42 females with an average age of 32.3 yeares (range, 18-47 years); there were 23cases of protrusion, 52 cases of prolapse, and 18 cases of sequestration with an average disease duration of 8.5 months (range, 1-18 months), including 8 cases at L2,3 level, 11 cases at L3,4 level, 35 cases at L4,5 level, and 39 cases at L5, S1 level. In group B, there were 81 males and 67 females with an average age of 31.8 years (range, 16-50 years); there were 37 cases of protrusion, 85 cases of prolapse, and 26 cases of sequestration with an average disease duration of 9.3 months (range, 1-20 months), including 9 cases at L2,3 level, 15 cases at L3,4 level, 63 cases at L4,5 level, and 61 cases at L5, S1 level. There was no significant difference in age, sex, segment level, type, or disease duration between 2 groups (P gt; 0.05). Results Immediate back and sciatic pain rel ief was achieved in 225 (93.4%) patients after operation. The satisfactory rates were 91.4% in group A and 87.8% in group B at 1 week after operation, showing no significant difference (P gt; 0.05). The length of incision, amount of bleeding, amount of drainage, and hospital ization time in group A were significantly fewer than those in group B (P lt; 0.05); while the operative time in group A was longer than that in group B, but showing no significant difference (P gt; 0.05). Dural laceration occurred in 4 cases of groupA and 5 cases of group B, superficial infections of incision occurred in 5 cases of group B and intervertebral space nfections occurred in 4 cases of group B, and epidural hematoma occurred in 1 case of group A. The perioperative compl ication rate (5.4%, 5/93) in group A was significantly lower (P lt; 0.05) than that in group B (9.5%, 14/148). LDP recurred in 4 cases (4.3%) of group A and in 9 cases (6.1%) of group B postoperatively, showing no significant difference (P gt; 0.05); of them, 11 cases received second operation and 2 cases were treated conservatively. All cases were followed up 36-77 months (mean, 51.4 months). There were significant differences in visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry disabil ity index (ODI) between 2 groups at the last follow-up and preoperation (P gt; 0.05), but there was significant difference in VAS at 1 week postoperatively between 2 groups (P lt; 0.05). VAS and ODI were obviously improved at 1 week and last follow-up when compared with preoperation (P lt; 0.05). There was no significant difference in the improvement rates of VAS and ODI between 2 groups at last follow-up (P gt; 0.05). According to cl inical evaluation of Modified Macnab criteria, the excellent and good rate was 90.3% in group A and 86.5% in group B at final follow-up (P gt; 0.05). Conclusion Both macrodiscectomy and microdiscectomy are effective for LDP, furthermore microdiscectomy is less invasive than macrodiscectomy. Microdiscectomy is recommended to treat single-level LDP.
ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the effectiveness and safety of fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (F-EVAR) and chimney endovascular aortic repair (Ch-EVAR) in treatment of juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (JRAAA).MethodsThe databases including the PubMed, Cochrane Library, CNKI, etc. were searched to collect the randomized controlled trails (RCTs) and non-RCTs about the F-EVAR versus Ch-EVAR for the JRAAA. The retrieval time was from inception to November 2019. The studies were screened according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the data were extracted and the quality was evaluated by 2 reviewers independently. Then the meta-analysis was conducted using the RevMan 5.1 software.ResultsA total of 9 non-RCTs involving 536 patients were included, 315 of whom were in the F-EVAR group, 221 of whom were in the Ch-EVARF group. The results of meta-analysis showed that: Compared with the F-EVAR group, the Ch-EVAR group had a higher incidence of type Ⅰ endoleak [OR=0.31, 95%CI (0.12, 0.85), P=0.02] and a lower incidence of target organ injury [OR=2.96, 95%CI (1.30, 6.72), P=0.010]. But there were no differences in the technical success rate, vascular restenosis, re-intervention rate, and 30 d mortality between the 2 groups (P>0.05).ConclusionsBoth F-EVAR and Ch-EVAR are safe and effective treatments for JRAAA. F-EVAR has a relative low incidence of type Ⅰ endoleak, but a relatively high incidence of target organ damage. However, for the limitation of quantity and quality of the included studies, this conclusion still requires to be further proved by performing large scale and high quality RCTs. It suggests that doctors should choose a best therapy for patients with JRAAA according to an integrative disease assessment.