冷冻象鼻时代传统象鼻的命运。

Q3 Medicine
AORTA Pub Date : 2024-05-16 DOI:10.1055/s-0044-1786352
A. Geragotellis, Matti Jubouri, Mohammed Al-Tawil, Idhrees Mohammed, Mohamad Bashir, Saeid Hosseini
{"title":"冷冻象鼻时代传统象鼻的命运。","authors":"A. Geragotellis, Matti Jubouri, Mohammed Al-Tawil, Idhrees Mohammed, Mohamad Bashir, Saeid Hosseini","doi":"10.1055/s-0044-1786352","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Conventional elephant trunk (cET) and frozen elephant trunk (FET) are two distinct approaches to the surgical treatment of thoracic aortic aneurysms and dissections. With the advent and growing uptake of endovascular technologies, FET is becoming increasingly popular for its potential to be performed as a single-stage operation with better aortic remodeling and less risk of graft kinking than the traditional two-stage cET procedure. However, FET has been associated with a higher risk of spinal cord ischemia and its use in patients with connective tissue disorder remains controversial. The current review aimed to reflect on recent evidence surrounding the application of cET and FET to different types of aortic pathology in both acute and elective settings. Another scope of this review was to compare the characteristics of the currently available FET commercial devices on the global market. Our findings highlight that when the pathology is confined to the proximal descending aorta, such as in Dsine, intervention is often single-staged and false lumen (FL) thrombosis is achieved with good effect. FET remains limited by spinal cord injury and applicability in patients with connective tissue disorder, although some groups have started to circumvent associated complications, likely due to growing surgical expertise. Many other aortic diseases do require second-stage intervention, and even in these cases, there appears to be lower in-hospital mortality when using FET over cET. This is possibly due to the higher rate of endovascular completion facilitated by the completed landing zones created during FET. FET is trending toward becoming the universal treatment modality for extending repair to the descending aorta.","PeriodicalId":52392,"journal":{"name":"AORTA","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Fate of Conventional Elephant Trunk in the Frozen Elephant Trunk Era.\",\"authors\":\"A. Geragotellis, Matti Jubouri, Mohammed Al-Tawil, Idhrees Mohammed, Mohamad Bashir, Saeid Hosseini\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/s-0044-1786352\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Conventional elephant trunk (cET) and frozen elephant trunk (FET) are two distinct approaches to the surgical treatment of thoracic aortic aneurysms and dissections. With the advent and growing uptake of endovascular technologies, FET is becoming increasingly popular for its potential to be performed as a single-stage operation with better aortic remodeling and less risk of graft kinking than the traditional two-stage cET procedure. However, FET has been associated with a higher risk of spinal cord ischemia and its use in patients with connective tissue disorder remains controversial. The current review aimed to reflect on recent evidence surrounding the application of cET and FET to different types of aortic pathology in both acute and elective settings. Another scope of this review was to compare the characteristics of the currently available FET commercial devices on the global market. Our findings highlight that when the pathology is confined to the proximal descending aorta, such as in Dsine, intervention is often single-staged and false lumen (FL) thrombosis is achieved with good effect. FET remains limited by spinal cord injury and applicability in patients with connective tissue disorder, although some groups have started to circumvent associated complications, likely due to growing surgical expertise. Many other aortic diseases do require second-stage intervention, and even in these cases, there appears to be lower in-hospital mortality when using FET over cET. This is possibly due to the higher rate of endovascular completion facilitated by the completed landing zones created during FET. FET is trending toward becoming the universal treatment modality for extending repair to the descending aorta.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52392,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"AORTA\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"AORTA\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0044-1786352\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AORTA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0044-1786352","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

传统大象干(cET)和冷冻大象干(FET)是手术治疗胸主动脉瘤和夹层的两种不同方法。随着血管内技术的出现和日益普及,冷冻象鼻躯干手术越来越受欢迎,因为与传统的两阶段 cET 手术相比,冷冻象鼻躯干手术可作为单阶段手术进行,具有更好的主动脉重塑效果和更低的移植物扭结风险。然而,FET 与脊髓缺血的高风险相关,而且其在结缔组织疾病患者中的应用仍存在争议。本综述旨在反思近期围绕 cET 和 FET 在急诊和择期手术中应用于不同类型主动脉病变的相关证据。本综述的另一个范围是比较目前全球市场上可用的 FET 商业设备的特点。我们的研究结果表明,当病变局限于降主动脉近端时,如在 Dsine 病例中,介入通常只需一个阶段,并且假腔(FL)血栓形成的效果很好。假腔内血栓形成术仍然受到脊髓损伤和结缔组织疾病患者适用性的限制,不过一些研究小组已经开始规避相关并发症,这很可能是由于手术专业知识的不断提高。许多其他主动脉疾病确实需要二期介入治疗,即使在这些病例中,使用 FET 的院内死亡率似乎也低于 cET。这可能是由于 FET 期间创建的完整着床区提高了血管内手术的完成率。FET 有成为扩展降主动脉修复的通用治疗方式的趋势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Fate of Conventional Elephant Trunk in the Frozen Elephant Trunk Era.
Conventional elephant trunk (cET) and frozen elephant trunk (FET) are two distinct approaches to the surgical treatment of thoracic aortic aneurysms and dissections. With the advent and growing uptake of endovascular technologies, FET is becoming increasingly popular for its potential to be performed as a single-stage operation with better aortic remodeling and less risk of graft kinking than the traditional two-stage cET procedure. However, FET has been associated with a higher risk of spinal cord ischemia and its use in patients with connective tissue disorder remains controversial. The current review aimed to reflect on recent evidence surrounding the application of cET and FET to different types of aortic pathology in both acute and elective settings. Another scope of this review was to compare the characteristics of the currently available FET commercial devices on the global market. Our findings highlight that when the pathology is confined to the proximal descending aorta, such as in Dsine, intervention is often single-staged and false lumen (FL) thrombosis is achieved with good effect. FET remains limited by spinal cord injury and applicability in patients with connective tissue disorder, although some groups have started to circumvent associated complications, likely due to growing surgical expertise. Many other aortic diseases do require second-stage intervention, and even in these cases, there appears to be lower in-hospital mortality when using FET over cET. This is possibly due to the higher rate of endovascular completion facilitated by the completed landing zones created during FET. FET is trending toward becoming the universal treatment modality for extending repair to the descending aorta.
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
AORTA
AORTA Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
119
×
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