Analysis and comparison of failure causes of minimally invasive surgical closure of ventricular septal defects in children.

IF 0.8 4区 医学 Q4 PEDIATRICS
Jin Yu, Zhuo Shi, Jingjing Qian, Lianglong Ma, Baofu Zhang, Liyang Ying, Qiang Shu
{"title":"Analysis and comparison of failure causes of minimally invasive surgical closure of ventricular septal defects in children.","authors":"Jin Yu,&nbsp;Zhuo Shi,&nbsp;Jingjing Qian,&nbsp;Lianglong Ma,&nbsp;Baofu Zhang,&nbsp;Liyang Ying,&nbsp;Qiang Shu","doi":"10.1136/wjps-2022-000432","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aims of the present study were to explore the causes of minimally invasive surgical ventricular septal defect (VSD) closure failure under transesophageal echocardiography guidance and thus to improve the success rate of surgical VSD closure.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From January 2015 to December 2019, 522 children with VSD underwent minimally invasive surgical closure. Nineteen procedures (3.64%) were unsuccessful. The failure causes, VSD locations and surgical incision approaches were retrospectively analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the 19 patients (3.64%) with unsuccessful outcomes, 18 were switched to cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) surgery, and 1 was closed successfully using an occlusion device a year later. The causes of failure included occlusion device shedding or shifting (n=6), failure of the guidewire (or the sheath) to pass through a small defect (n=5), device-related valve regurgitation (n=4), significant residual shunt (n=2), ventricular fibrillation (n=1), and continuous sharp blood pressure decreases (n=1). Patients with high VSD had a slightly higher failure rate than those with perimembranous VSD (p=0.049), and its key reason is the high proportion of occlusion device shedding or shifting (p=0.001). No significant difference in the failure rate was found between patients with different surgical incision approaches.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Minimally invasive surgery has a high success rate for perimembranous VSDs. Occlusion device shedding or shifting is the most common cause of failure. The shedding or shifting risk of eccentric occlusion devices being used only for high VSDs is much greater than that of concentric occlusion devices being used for perimembranous VSDs, which increases the risk of conversion to CPB surgery for high VSDs.</p>","PeriodicalId":23823,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Pediatric Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/3a/87/wjps-2022-000432.PMC9933489.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Pediatric Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/wjps-2022-000432","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: The aims of the present study were to explore the causes of minimally invasive surgical ventricular septal defect (VSD) closure failure under transesophageal echocardiography guidance and thus to improve the success rate of surgical VSD closure.

Methods: From January 2015 to December 2019, 522 children with VSD underwent minimally invasive surgical closure. Nineteen procedures (3.64%) were unsuccessful. The failure causes, VSD locations and surgical incision approaches were retrospectively analyzed.

Results: Among the 19 patients (3.64%) with unsuccessful outcomes, 18 were switched to cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) surgery, and 1 was closed successfully using an occlusion device a year later. The causes of failure included occlusion device shedding or shifting (n=6), failure of the guidewire (or the sheath) to pass through a small defect (n=5), device-related valve regurgitation (n=4), significant residual shunt (n=2), ventricular fibrillation (n=1), and continuous sharp blood pressure decreases (n=1). Patients with high VSD had a slightly higher failure rate than those with perimembranous VSD (p=0.049), and its key reason is the high proportion of occlusion device shedding or shifting (p=0.001). No significant difference in the failure rate was found between patients with different surgical incision approaches.

Conclusions: Minimally invasive surgery has a high success rate for perimembranous VSDs. Occlusion device shedding or shifting is the most common cause of failure. The shedding or shifting risk of eccentric occlusion devices being used only for high VSDs is much greater than that of concentric occlusion devices being used for perimembranous VSDs, which increases the risk of conversion to CPB surgery for high VSDs.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

小儿室间隔缺损微创手术闭合失败原因分析与比较。
目的:探讨经食管超声心动图引导下微创室间隔缺损(ventricular septal缺损,VSD)手术关闭失败的原因,提高手术关闭VSD的成功率。方法:2015年1月至2019年12月,522例室间隔缺损患儿行微创手术缝合。19例(3.64%)手术不成功。回顾性分析手术失败原因、VSD部位及手术切口入路。结果:19例(3.64%)预后不成功的患者中,18例转行体外循环(CPB)手术,1年后使用闭塞装置成功关闭1例。失败的原因包括闭塞装置脱落或移位(n=6),导丝(或鞘)未能通过小缺陷(n=5),装置相关瓣膜返流(n=4),明显残留分流(n=2),心室颤动(n=1)和持续急剧血压下降(n=1)。高VSD患者的失败率略高于膜周VSD患者(p=0.049),其关键原因是闭塞器脱落或移位比例高(p=0.001)。不同手术切口入路患者的手术失败率无明显差异。结论:微创手术治疗膜周室间隔缺损成功率高。闭塞装置脱落或移位是最常见的失败原因。仅用于高位VSDs的偏心闭塞装置的脱落或移位风险远大于用于膜周VSDs的同心闭塞装置,这增加了高位VSDs转为CPB手术的风险。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
12.50%
发文量
38
审稿时长
13 weeks
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信