Endovascular Management of Aortic Injuries Caused by Pedicle Screws: A Two-Case Series With a Proposed Decision-Making Framework.

IF 0.7
Santiago Rosales, Andres Rodriguez-Buitrago, Marcos Tarazona, Yessid Araque-Puello, Juan Alarcon-Palomino, Juan F Ramon, Fernando Alvarado-Gomez
{"title":"Endovascular Management of Aortic Injuries Caused by Pedicle Screws: A Two-Case Series With a Proposed Decision-Making Framework.","authors":"Santiago Rosales, Andres Rodriguez-Buitrago, Marcos Tarazona, Yessid Araque-Puello, Juan Alarcon-Palomino, Juan F Ramon, Fernando Alvarado-Gomez","doi":"10.1177/15385744251387781","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>IntroductionPedicle screw-related aortic injuries are rare but potentially life-threatening complications of spinal instrumentation. While some cases remain asymptomatic for extended periods, delayed recognition increases the risk of catastrophic vascular events. Early diagnosis and appropriate management are critical to prevent severe morbidity and mortality. Traditional open vascular repair carries significant risks, whereas thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative. However, clear guidelines for diagnosis and treatment in spine surgery remain lacking.MethodsWe present 2 cases of aortic injury caused by pedicle screws following spinal instrumentation. Both patients underwent multidisciplinary management, including intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) for vascular assessment, TEVAR for aortic repair, and pedicle screw removal/repositioning. A review of the literature was conducted to contextualize these cases within existing management strategies.ResultsBoth patients were successfully treated with TEVAR and pedicle screw revision, without perioperative complications. IVUS played a crucial role in confirming the extent of vascular involvement and guiding intervention. At 18-month and 24-month follow-up, both patients remained asymptomatic, with no evidence of graft migration, endoleak, or spinal instability.ConclusionsPedicle screw-related aortic injuries, though uncommon, pose a serious risk in spine surgery. Multidisciplinary management involving spine and vascular surgery is essential for optimal outcomes. IVUS enhances diagnostic accuracy, allowing for precise treatment planning. Endovascular stent placement, combined with appropriate pedicle screw revision, is an effective and safe management strategy. Given the lack of standardized guidelines, we propose a structured decision-making approach for spine surgeons encountering vascular complications. Future research should focus on risk stratification, screening protocols, and long-term outcomes of endovascular management in spinal instrumentation.</p>","PeriodicalId":94265,"journal":{"name":"Vascular and endovascular surgery","volume":" ","pages":"15385744251387781"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vascular and endovascular surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15385744251387781","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

IntroductionPedicle screw-related aortic injuries are rare but potentially life-threatening complications of spinal instrumentation. While some cases remain asymptomatic for extended periods, delayed recognition increases the risk of catastrophic vascular events. Early diagnosis and appropriate management are critical to prevent severe morbidity and mortality. Traditional open vascular repair carries significant risks, whereas thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative. However, clear guidelines for diagnosis and treatment in spine surgery remain lacking.MethodsWe present 2 cases of aortic injury caused by pedicle screws following spinal instrumentation. Both patients underwent multidisciplinary management, including intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) for vascular assessment, TEVAR for aortic repair, and pedicle screw removal/repositioning. A review of the literature was conducted to contextualize these cases within existing management strategies.ResultsBoth patients were successfully treated with TEVAR and pedicle screw revision, without perioperative complications. IVUS played a crucial role in confirming the extent of vascular involvement and guiding intervention. At 18-month and 24-month follow-up, both patients remained asymptomatic, with no evidence of graft migration, endoleak, or spinal instability.ConclusionsPedicle screw-related aortic injuries, though uncommon, pose a serious risk in spine surgery. Multidisciplinary management involving spine and vascular surgery is essential for optimal outcomes. IVUS enhances diagnostic accuracy, allowing for precise treatment planning. Endovascular stent placement, combined with appropriate pedicle screw revision, is an effective and safe management strategy. Given the lack of standardized guidelines, we propose a structured decision-making approach for spine surgeons encountering vascular complications. Future research should focus on risk stratification, screening protocols, and long-term outcomes of endovascular management in spinal instrumentation.

椎弓根螺钉所致主动脉损伤的血管内治疗:两例决策框架。
椎弓根螺钉相关的主动脉损伤是罕见的,但可能危及生命的并发症脊柱内固定。虽然有些病例长时间无症状,但延迟识别增加了灾难性血管事件的风险。早期诊断和适当管理对于预防严重发病率和死亡率至关重要。传统的开放血管修复具有显著的风险,而胸血管内主动脉修复(TEVAR)已成为一种微创替代方法。然而,脊柱外科的诊断和治疗仍然缺乏明确的指南。方法报告2例椎弓根螺钉内固定后主动脉损伤病例。两名患者均接受了多学科治疗,包括血管内超声(IVUS)评估血管,TEVAR修复主动脉,椎弓根螺钉拆除/重新定位。对文献进行了回顾,以便在现有的管理策略中对这些案例进行背景分析。结果两例患者均成功接受TEVAR和椎弓根螺钉翻修,无围手术期并发症。IVUS在确认血管受累程度和指导干预方面起着至关重要的作用。在18个月和24个月的随访中,两名患者均无症状,无移植物迁移、内漏或脊柱不稳定的证据。结论椎弓根螺钉相关性主动脉损伤虽不常见,但在脊柱外科手术中存在严重的风险。涉及脊柱和血管手术的多学科管理对于获得最佳结果至关重要。IVUS提高了诊断的准确性,允许精确的治疗计划。血管内支架置入结合适当的椎弓根螺钉翻修是一种有效且安全的治疗策略。鉴于缺乏标准化的指导方针,我们提出了一个结构化的决策方法,脊柱外科医生遇到血管并发症。未来的研究应侧重于风险分层、筛查方案和脊柱内固定血管内管理的长期结果。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信