Mini-skin longitudinal incision versus traditional longitudinal incision for carotid endarterectomy in patients with carotid artery stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE
Filipa Jácome, José Oliveira-Pinto, Ana Dionísio, Andreia Coelho, José F Ramos, Armando Mansilha
{"title":"Mini-skin longitudinal incision versus traditional longitudinal incision for carotid endarterectomy in patients with carotid artery stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Filipa Jácome, José Oliveira-Pinto, Ana Dionísio, Andreia Coelho, José F Ramos, Armando Mansilha","doi":"10.23736/S0392-9590.24.05300-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) remains the gold standard intervention for stroke prevention in patients with carotid artery stenosis but the surgical technique continues evolving with research being conducted on minimally invasive alternatives. Mini-skin incision CEA has emerged as a more aesthetically appealing and less painful alternative to the traditional technique with a potential impact on main procedural events. We aimed to provide a review of the literature and to compare the mini-skin incision with the traditional approach.</p><p><strong>Evidence acquisition: </strong>A systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. Databases PubMed and Scopus were last searched on 20<sup>th</sup> July 2023. Procedural stroke, cranial/cervical nerves injury and mortality were defined as primary outcomes and length of hospitalization and minor complications as secondary outcomes. We included manuscripts comparing mini-skin with traditional incision CEA, and reporting our pre-established outcomes. The quality of studies was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We assessed heterogeneity and performed a meta-analysis for quantitative analysis when appropriate.</p><p><strong>Evidence synthesis: </strong>Five studies comprising a total of 2912 CEA procedures (2738 patients; 75.7% males) were included in both the qualitative and quantitative analysis. Compared with the traditional CEA, mini-skin incision led to a statistically significant decrease in periprocedural cranial/cervical nerve injury (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.21, 0.43; P<0.01). Length of hospital stay and minor complications were significantly decreased in the mini-skin incision group (P<0.05). Concerning 30-day stroke rate and mortality no differences were attained.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our results suggest that mini-skin incision CEA might be a safer approach, with the potential to significantly decrease the perioperative morbidity. Further studies are needed to confirm these preliminary findings and to reinforce the role of mini-skin incision CEA as a promising, less invasive alternative in the treatment armamentarium of carotid artery stenosis.</p>","PeriodicalId":13709,"journal":{"name":"International Angiology","volume":"43 5","pages":"533-540"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Angiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0392-9590.24.05300-8","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) remains the gold standard intervention for stroke prevention in patients with carotid artery stenosis but the surgical technique continues evolving with research being conducted on minimally invasive alternatives. Mini-skin incision CEA has emerged as a more aesthetically appealing and less painful alternative to the traditional technique with a potential impact on main procedural events. We aimed to provide a review of the literature and to compare the mini-skin incision with the traditional approach.

Evidence acquisition: A systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. Databases PubMed and Scopus were last searched on 20th July 2023. Procedural stroke, cranial/cervical nerves injury and mortality were defined as primary outcomes and length of hospitalization and minor complications as secondary outcomes. We included manuscripts comparing mini-skin with traditional incision CEA, and reporting our pre-established outcomes. The quality of studies was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We assessed heterogeneity and performed a meta-analysis for quantitative analysis when appropriate.

Evidence synthesis: Five studies comprising a total of 2912 CEA procedures (2738 patients; 75.7% males) were included in both the qualitative and quantitative analysis. Compared with the traditional CEA, mini-skin incision led to a statistically significant decrease in periprocedural cranial/cervical nerve injury (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.21, 0.43; P<0.01). Length of hospital stay and minor complications were significantly decreased in the mini-skin incision group (P<0.05). Concerning 30-day stroke rate and mortality no differences were attained.

Conclusions: Our results suggest that mini-skin incision CEA might be a safer approach, with the potential to significantly decrease the perioperative morbidity. Further studies are needed to confirm these preliminary findings and to reinforce the role of mini-skin incision CEA as a promising, less invasive alternative in the treatment armamentarium of carotid artery stenosis.

颈动脉狭窄患者颈动脉内膜切除术的小皮肤纵向切口与传统纵向切口:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。
颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)仍然是颈动脉狭窄患者预防卒中的金标准干预措施,但随着微创替代方法的研究,手术技术不断发展。与传统技术相比,迷你皮肤切口CEA已经成为一种更美观、更少痛苦的替代技术,对主要手术事件有潜在的影响。我们的目的是提供文献回顾,并比较微型皮肤切口与传统的方法。证据获取:按照PRISMA指南进行了系统评价。PubMed和Scopus最后一次检索是在2023年7月20日。程序性卒中、颅/颈神经损伤和死亡率被定义为主要结局,住院时间和轻微并发症被定义为次要结局。我们纳入了比较微型皮肤与传统切口CEA的手稿,并报告了我们预先确定的结果。研究质量采用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表进行评估。我们评估了异质性,并在适当的时候进行了荟萃分析以进行定量分析。证据综合:5项研究共包含2912例CEA手术(2738例患者;75.7%男性)均纳入定性和定量分析。与传统CEA相比,微创皮肤切口术中颅颈神经损伤发生率有统计学意义(OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.21, 0.43;结论:我们的研究结果表明,微型皮肤切口CEA可能是一种更安全的方法,具有显著降低围手术期发病率的潜力。需要进一步的研究来证实这些初步发现,并加强微型皮肤切口CEA作为治疗颈动脉狭窄的一种有希望的、侵入性较小的替代方法的作用。
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
International Angiology
International Angiology 医学-外周血管病
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
28.60%
发文量
89
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: International Angiology publishes scientific papers on angiology. Manuscripts may be submitted in the form of editorials, original articles, review articles, special articles, letters to the Editor and guidelines. The journal aims to provide its readers with papers of the highest quality and impact through a process of careful peer review and editorial work. Duties and responsibilities of all the subjects involved in the editorial process are summarized at Publication ethics. 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 (ICMJE).
×
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