Outcomes after Transverse-Incision 'Mini' Carotid Endarterectomy and Patch-Plasty

Comparative on the effectiveness and safety of different carotid endarterectomy techniques: a single-center Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is a surgical procedure that can reduce the risk of stroke in patients with carotid artery stenosis. However, controversy still exists regarding the optimal surgical technique for CEA.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the safety and effectiveness of different techniques.

METHODS

Data on baseline characteristics as well as perioperative and postoperative complications from patients who underwent CEA at the Department of Vascular Surgery, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, were retrospectively collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 262 CEA patients included in study, with a total of 265 CEA operations. The mean age of 69.95 ± 7.29 (range, 44-89) years. 65 (24.5%) patients underwent cCEA, 94 (35.5%) underwent pCEA, and 106 (40.0%) underwent eCEA. The use of shunt (1.9%) and the mean operation time were lower in eCEA group (P < 0.05). eCEA was also associated with a lower incidence of postoperative hypotension, whereas pCEA was associated with a lower incidence of postoperative hypertension (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in clinical baseline characteristics, occurrence of perioperative complications, and survival whether restenosis-free, asymptomatic or overall.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found that all three surgical methods are equally safe for the treatment of carotid artery stenosis and are effective in preventing stroke.

Comparison Between Conventional and Patch Carotid Endarterectomy: A Single-Center Retrospective Study

OBJECTIVE

To compare perioperative and long-term safety and effectiveness between conventional carotid endarterectomy (cCEA) and patch carotid endarterectomy (pCEA) under current medical conditions.

METHODS

Data on baseline characteristics as well as perioperative and long-term postoperative complications from patients who underwent cCEA or pCEA at the Department of Vascular Surgery, Xuanwu Hospital of Capital Medical University, from 2013 to 2022, were retrospectively collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 248 CEA patients were included in our study. The majority of patients (87.3%) were male, and mean age was 63.6 ± 7.6 (range, 40-81) years; 104 patients (41.9%) underwent cCEA, while 144 (58.1%) underwent pCEA. Between the cCEA and pCEA groups, there were no significant differences in clinical baseline characteristics, occurrence of perioperative or long-term (median, 42.5 [range, 7 to 120] months) complications, and survival whether restenosis-free, asymptomatic or overall.

CONCLUSIONS

In a single-center experience, conventional and patch CEA approaches appear similarly safe and effective.

Is low carotid bifurcation determined by vertebral level always convenient for surgical approach?

Although high-level carotid bifurcation (HCB) could lead to notable surgical difficulty, the definitive reference point for HCB is unclear. HCB is typically characterized as carotid bifurcation (CB) located higher than the level of the third cervical vertebra (C), however, a major obstacle regarding carotid artery surgical exposure is angle of the mandible (AM). The objective of this study was to investigate CB level, define HCB in relation to AM and vertebral levels, and measure the vertical distance from HCB to ipsilateral AM. Moreover, the percentage of surgically challenged CBs, misclassified as low CBs (LCB) based on vertebral level, was investigated. Patients who underwent neck computed tomography angiography were retrospectively studied. HCBs were classified into two categories: CBs above the C3 and either at or above the ipsilateral AM. Of 172 CBs (86 patients; 57 men, 29 women), CB was mostly found at C3 (44.19%), whereas AM was commonly located at C2 (51.16%). Based on vertebral level and AM, HCBs were detected in 10.47% and 20.35% of CBs, respectively. The association of HCBs determined by either C3 or AM between both sides in each individual was nonsignificant (p>0.05), but HCBs determined by C3 level were predominant in women (OR = 3.58, 95%CI = 1.31-9.80). Considering both C3 and AM, there was 8.72% of HCBs. The remaining 91.28% was classified as LCBs, including 11.63% of CBs located at both C3 and AM which were actually classified as HCBs if determined by AM. In cases of CBs above AM level, the mean vertical distance was as high as 6.56 ±2.41mm.

[Evolution of surgical approaches to carotid bifurcation]

Carotid endarterectomy is preferable for prevention of acute cerebrovascular accident associated with atherosclerotic lesions of internal carotid artery. Modern interest in minimizing local complications and small excisions is also actual in carotid surgery. The authors review the modern literature data on evolution of carotid arteries exposure. Cutaneous mini-incision, transverse skin incision and retrojugular approach are discussed. The authors consider the advantages and possible complications of each technique.

Update on Management of Symptomatic Carotid Stenosis

Carotid artery stenosis (CAS) is one of the leading causes of cerebral ischemia and stroke.7 When plaque builds up in the internal carotid artery, it blocks blood flow to the brain. Oftentimes, this condition only comes to light after a patient experiences a stroke or stroke-like symptoms. When this occurs, cholesterol-lowering medications and blood thinners can help to increase blood flow to the brain. However, if the plaque is so large that it severely narrows the lumen of the artery, surgery may be required to restore blood flow to the brain. Patients with severe stenosis can undergo procedures such as carotid endarterectomies (CEA), stenting, and transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) for this purpose. In this review, we discuss these procedures and which patients warrant which type of intervention. We look at the pathophysiology of internal carotid artery stenosis and current treatment options, while highlighting emerging treatment options. This review aims to increase understanding of the management of symptomatic carotid artery stenosis as well as provide a groundwork for more innovative treatments.