Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
1.
Zentralbl Chir ; 146(5): 479-485, 2021 Oct.
Artigo em Alemão | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34666362

RESUMO

Pathologies in the region of the aortic arch may occur in isolation, but adjacent segments of the thoracic aorta - the ascending or descending aorta - are much more commonly affected. The first surgical procedures to treat the aortic arch were performed nearly six decades ago. Despite numerous improvements and innovations in the 20th and early 21st centuries, these procedures are still associated with relevant operative mortality and neurological complication rates. Endovascular techniques and modern hybrid procedures are increasingly expanding the therapeutic spectrum in the aortic arch, although the open surgical approach is currently still the gold standard. Endovascular treatment of aortic aneurysm was first performed in the early 1990s in the infrarenal abdominal aorta. It was not long before the first attempts at endovascular therapy were made for the treatment of the aortic arch. In 1996, Inoue et al. reported the use of the first commonly used endoprosthesis to treat aneurysms in the aortic arch. Continuous improvements and refinements in implantation techniques and also implanted material have resulted in endovascular therapy now being an increasingly important option compared to open surgical procedures in the descending thoracic and abdominal aorta and has partially replaced them as the gold standard. This review article aims to provide an overview of the prerequisites, results, but also limitations of endovascular surgery of the aortic arch.


Assuntos
Aneurisma da Aorta Torácica , Implante de Prótese Vascular , Procedimentos Endovasculares , Aorta/cirurgia , Aorta Torácica/diagnóstico por imagem , Aorta Torácica/cirurgia , Aneurisma da Aorta Torácica/cirurgia , Prótese Vascular , Humanos , Stents , Resultado do Tratamento
2.
Zentralbl Chir ; 145(5): 445-447, 2020 Oct.
Artigo em Alemão | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33027826

RESUMO

Nowadays endovascular treatment of pathologies of the superficial femoral artery is widely used and often the treatment of first choice. In patients with long-segment artery occlusions, bypass surgery can still be necessary. If so, the decision for adequate bypass material needs to be made. This manuscript summarises the available evidence on autogenous vein bypasses above the knee and presents a clear pro for venous grafts in the suprapopliteal segment.


Assuntos
Politetrafluoretileno , Veias , Artéria Femoral , Humanos , Resultado do Tratamento , Grau de Desobstrução Vascular , Veias/cirurgia
3.
Stroke ; 48(6): 1580-1587, 2017 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28455318

RESUMO

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for symptomatic stenosis of the internal carotid artery benefit from early intervention. Heterogeneous data are available on the influence of timing of carotid artery stenting (CAS) on procedural risk. METHODS: We investigated the association between timing of treatment (0-7 days and >7 days after the qualifying neurological event) and the 30-day risk of stroke or death after CAS or CEA in a pooled analysis of individual patient data from 4 randomized trials by the Carotid Stenosis Trialists' Collaboration. Analyses were done per protocol. To obtain combined estimates, logistic mixed models were applied. RESULTS: Among a total of 4138 patients, a minority received their allocated treatment within 7 days after symptom onset (14% CAS versus 11% CEA). Among patients treated within 1 week of symptoms, those treated by CAS had a higher risk of stroke or death compared with those treated with CEA: 8.3% versus 1.3%, risk ratio, 6.7; 95% confidence interval, 2.1 to 21.9 (adjusted for age at treatment, sex, and type of qualifying event). For interventions after 1 week, CAS was also more hazardous than CEA: 7.1% versus 3.6%, adjusted risk ratio, 2.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.5 to 2.7 (P value for interaction with time interval 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: In randomized trials comparing stenting with CEA for symptomatic carotid artery stenosis, CAS was associated with a substantially higher periprocedural risk during the first 7 days after the onset of symptoms. Early surgery is safer than stenting for preventing future stroke. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00190398; URL: http://www.controlled-trials.com. Unique identifier: ISRCTN57874028; Unique identifier: ISRCTN25337470; URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00004732.


Assuntos
Artéria Carótida Interna/cirurgia , Estenose das Carótidas/cirurgia , Endarterectomia das Carótidas/efeitos adversos , Procedimentos Endovasculares/efeitos adversos , Avaliação de Processos e Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Stents/efeitos adversos , Acidente Vascular Cerebral/etiologia , Idoso , Estenose das Carótidas/epidemiologia , Endarterectomia das Carótidas/estatística & dados numéricos , Procedimentos Endovasculares/estatística & dados numéricos , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Stents/estatística & dados numéricos , Acidente Vascular Cerebral/epidemiologia , Fatores de Tempo
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA