医生改良型内皮移植窝洞的套环技术与 Hungaroring 加固法的比较--体外研究

Artúr Hüttl, Tin Dat Nguyen, S. Borzsák, András Süvegh, András Szentiványi, István Szilvácsku, Dóra Kovács, János Dobránszky, Péter Sótonyi, C. Csobay-Novák
{"title":"医生改良型内皮移植窝洞的套环技术与 Hungaroring 加固法的比较--体外研究","authors":"Artúr Hüttl, Tin Dat Nguyen, S. Borzsák, András Süvegh, András Szentiványi, István Szilvácsku, Dóra Kovács, János Dobránszky, Péter Sótonyi, C. Csobay-Novák","doi":"10.3390/jcdd11050134","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: We conducted an in vitro comparison of the snare loop reinforcement against a closed-loop reinforcement (Hungaroring) for physician-modified endograft (PMEG) fenestrations regarding preparation time and stability during flaring balloon dilatation. Materials and methods: The time to complete a PMEG fenestration with reinforcement was measured and compared between the Hungaroring and snare loop groups. The number of stitches was counted. Each fenestration was dilated using a 10 mm high-pressure, non-compliant balloon up to 21 atm in pressure, and fluoroscopic images were taken. The presence of indentation on the oversized balloon at the level of the reinforcement was evaluated at each fenestration. Results: Five fenestrations were created in each group (n = 5) for a total of ten pieces. The completion time in the snare loop group was 1070 s (IQR:1010–1090) compared to 760 s (IQR:685–784) in the Hungaroring group (p = 0.008). Faster completion time was achieved by faster stitching (23.2 s/stitch (IQR 22.8–27.3) for the snare loop group and 17.3 s/stitch (IQR 17.3–20.1) for the Hungaroring group (p = 0.016). None of the fluoroscopic images of the snare loop reinforcement showed an indentation on the balloon during the overexpansion; on the contrary, the Hungaroring showed indentation in every case, even at 21 atm. Conclusion: Fenestrations reinforced with Hungaroring can be completed significantly faster. Furthermore, the Hungaroring resists over-dilation even at high pressures, while snare loop reinforcements dilate at nominal pressure.","PeriodicalId":502527,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease","volume":"1 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of the Snare Loop Technique and the Hungaroring Reinforcement for Physician-Modified Endograft Fenestrations—An In Vitro Study\",\"authors\":\"Artúr Hüttl, Tin Dat Nguyen, S. Borzsák, András Süvegh, András Szentiványi, István Szilvácsku, Dóra Kovács, János Dobránszky, Péter Sótonyi, C. Csobay-Novák\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/jcdd11050134\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: We conducted an in vitro comparison of the snare loop reinforcement against a closed-loop reinforcement (Hungaroring) for physician-modified endograft (PMEG) fenestrations regarding preparation time and stability during flaring balloon dilatation. Materials and methods: The time to complete a PMEG fenestration with reinforcement was measured and compared between the Hungaroring and snare loop groups. The number of stitches was counted. Each fenestration was dilated using a 10 mm high-pressure, non-compliant balloon up to 21 atm in pressure, and fluoroscopic images were taken. The presence of indentation on the oversized balloon at the level of the reinforcement was evaluated at each fenestration. Results: Five fenestrations were created in each group (n = 5) for a total of ten pieces. The completion time in the snare loop group was 1070 s (IQR:1010–1090) compared to 760 s (IQR:685–784) in the Hungaroring group (p = 0.008). Faster completion time was achieved by faster stitching (23.2 s/stitch (IQR 22.8–27.3) for the snare loop group and 17.3 s/stitch (IQR 17.3–20.1) for the Hungaroring group (p = 0.016). None of the fluoroscopic images of the snare loop reinforcement showed an indentation on the balloon during the overexpansion; on the contrary, the Hungaroring showed indentation in every case, even at 21 atm. Conclusion: Fenestrations reinforced with Hungaroring can be completed significantly faster. Furthermore, the Hungaroring resists over-dilation even at high pressures, while snare loop reinforcements dilate at nominal pressure.\",\"PeriodicalId\":502527,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease\",\"volume\":\"1 12\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/jcdd11050134\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/jcdd11050134","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:我们对医生改良内植物(PMEG)瘘管的套环加固法与闭环加固法(Hungaroring)进行了体外比较,比较了两者在扩张球囊时的准备时间和稳定性。材料和方法:测量并比较 Hungaroring 组和卡环组完成带加固的 PMEG 缝合所需的时间。对缝合针数进行了计数。使用 10 毫米高压非顺应性球囊扩张每个栅孔,压力达到 21 atm,并拍摄透视图像。在每个瘘管处评估超大球囊在加固处是否有压痕。结果:每组(n = 5)创建 5 个瓣膜,共 10 个瓣膜。套环组的完成时间为 1070 秒(IQR:1010-1090),而 Hungaroring 组为 760 秒(IQR:685-784)(p = 0.008)。更快的完成时间是通过更快的缝合速度实现的(套环组为 23.2 秒/针(IQR 22.8-27.3),Hungaroring 组为 17.3 秒/针(IQR 17.3-20.1)(p = 0.016)。套环加固的透视图像均未显示球囊在过度膨胀时出现压痕;相反,Hungaroring 在每个病例中都显示出压痕,即使在 21 atm 时也是如此。结论:使用 Hungaroring 加固的瘘管可明显加快完成速度。此外,Hungaroring 即使在高压下也能防止过度扩张,而卡环加固法在额定压力下也能扩张。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of the Snare Loop Technique and the Hungaroring Reinforcement for Physician-Modified Endograft Fenestrations—An In Vitro Study
Background: We conducted an in vitro comparison of the snare loop reinforcement against a closed-loop reinforcement (Hungaroring) for physician-modified endograft (PMEG) fenestrations regarding preparation time and stability during flaring balloon dilatation. Materials and methods: The time to complete a PMEG fenestration with reinforcement was measured and compared between the Hungaroring and snare loop groups. The number of stitches was counted. Each fenestration was dilated using a 10 mm high-pressure, non-compliant balloon up to 21 atm in pressure, and fluoroscopic images were taken. The presence of indentation on the oversized balloon at the level of the reinforcement was evaluated at each fenestration. Results: Five fenestrations were created in each group (n = 5) for a total of ten pieces. The completion time in the snare loop group was 1070 s (IQR:1010–1090) compared to 760 s (IQR:685–784) in the Hungaroring group (p = 0.008). Faster completion time was achieved by faster stitching (23.2 s/stitch (IQR 22.8–27.3) for the snare loop group and 17.3 s/stitch (IQR 17.3–20.1) for the Hungaroring group (p = 0.016). None of the fluoroscopic images of the snare loop reinforcement showed an indentation on the balloon during the overexpansion; on the contrary, the Hungaroring showed indentation in every case, even at 21 atm. Conclusion: Fenestrations reinforced with Hungaroring can be completed significantly faster. Furthermore, the Hungaroring resists over-dilation even at high pressures, while snare loop reinforcements dilate at nominal pressure.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信