Primary versus patch closure after carotid endarterectomy: A retrospective study

IF 1 Q3 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
N. Farouk, Ehab M. Abdo, Sameh E Elimam, Waleed E Elshinawy, Abdelaziz A Abdelhafez, Lobna Kh Sakr, W. Abdo, Hayam Abdel-Tawab, Eman A Elhamrawy, Sahar Fares Ahmed, Shymaa Adel Ismael, Mahmoud Kamel Elawady, Samy Ibrahim Kamel, Rehab Elsheikh, Ayman Osama
{"title":"Primary versus patch closure after carotid endarterectomy: A retrospective study","authors":"N. Farouk, Ehab M. Abdo, Sameh E Elimam, Waleed E Elshinawy, Abdelaziz A Abdelhafez, Lobna Kh Sakr, W. Abdo, Hayam Abdel-Tawab, Eman A Elhamrawy, Sahar Fares Ahmed, Shymaa Adel Ismael, Mahmoud Kamel Elawady, Samy Ibrahim Kamel, Rehab Elsheikh, Ayman Osama","doi":"10.29333/ejgm/14596","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: The present study aimed to provide our experience with patch closure (PAC) and primary closure (PRC) after carotid endarterectomy (CEA).\nMaterials & methods: The present retrospective comparative study included 106 patients submitted to elective CEA. They comprised 50 patients in PRC group and 56 patients in PAC group. Patients were followed perioperatively, at three months and at one year for surgical complications, stroke, and restenosis.\nResults: Postoperatively, no significant differences were found between the studied groups regarding rates of stroke (6.0% versus 3.6%, p=0.740), infection (0.0% versus 3.6%, p=0.520), hematoma (2.0% versus 1.8%, p=0.940), pseudoaneurysm (0.0% versus 3.6%, p=0.520), cranial nerve injury (2.0% versus 1.8%, p=0.940), and cardiac events (2.0% versus 1.8%, p=0.940). At three months, three patients in PRC group and four in PAC group were lost to follow up. No significant differences were found between the studied groups regarding rate of restenosis at three months (2.1% versus 0.0%, p=0.960). At one year, patients in PRC group experienced significantly higher rate of restenosis (14.9% versus 1.9%, p=0.046). None of the studied patients died.\nConclusions: CEA combined with patch angioplasty may be associated with lower restenosis rate.","PeriodicalId":44930,"journal":{"name":"Electronic Journal of General Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Electronic Journal of General Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29333/ejgm/14596","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The present study aimed to provide our experience with patch closure (PAC) and primary closure (PRC) after carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Materials & methods: The present retrospective comparative study included 106 patients submitted to elective CEA. They comprised 50 patients in PRC group and 56 patients in PAC group. Patients were followed perioperatively, at three months and at one year for surgical complications, stroke, and restenosis. Results: Postoperatively, no significant differences were found between the studied groups regarding rates of stroke (6.0% versus 3.6%, p=0.740), infection (0.0% versus 3.6%, p=0.520), hematoma (2.0% versus 1.8%, p=0.940), pseudoaneurysm (0.0% versus 3.6%, p=0.520), cranial nerve injury (2.0% versus 1.8%, p=0.940), and cardiac events (2.0% versus 1.8%, p=0.940). At three months, three patients in PRC group and four in PAC group were lost to follow up. No significant differences were found between the studied groups regarding rate of restenosis at three months (2.1% versus 0.0%, p=0.960). At one year, patients in PRC group experienced significantly higher rate of restenosis (14.9% versus 1.9%, p=0.046). None of the studied patients died. Conclusions: CEA combined with patch angioplasty may be associated with lower restenosis rate.
颈动脉内膜剥脱术后原发性闭合与补片闭合的比较:回顾性研究
目的:本研究旨在提供我们在颈动脉内膜剥脱术(CEA)后进行补片闭合(PAC)和初次闭合(PRC)的经验:本回顾性比较研究包括 106 名接受择期颈动脉内膜剥脱术(CEA)的患者。其中,PRC 组 50 例,PAC 组 56 例。对患者进行围手术期、三个月和一年的随访,以了解手术并发症、中风和再狭窄的情况:结果:术后,两组患者的中风率(6.0% 对 3.6%,P=0.740)、感染率(0.0% 对 3.6%,P=0.520)、血肿率(2.0% 对 3.6%,P=0.520)和再狭窄率(2.0% 对 3.6%,P=0.520)均无明显差异。520)、血肿(2.0% 对 1.8%,P=0.940)、假性动脉瘤(0.0% 对 3.6%,P=0.520)、颅神经损伤(2.0% 对 1.8%,P=0.940)和心脏事件(2.0% 对 1.8%,P=0.940)。三个月后,PRC 组和 PAC 组分别有三名和四名患者失去了随访机会。在三个月的再狭窄率方面,研究组之间没有发现明显差异(2.1% 对 0.0%,P=0.960)。一年后,PRC 组患者的再狭窄率明显更高(14.9% 对 1.9%,P=0.046)。研究中没有患者死亡:结论:CEA联合补片血管成形术可降低再狭窄率。
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
Electronic Journal of General Medicine
Electronic Journal of General Medicine MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
4.80%
发文量
79
×
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