RESUMEN
The aim was to assess the mid-term results of the E-iliac branched device. Baseline and follow-up data of this monocentric retrospective cohort study including all consecutive patients with aortoiliac aneurysms treated with iliac branched devices between 2016 and 2023 were extracted from the hospital records. Preoperative and follow-up CT scans were analyzed regarding endoleaks, migration, aneurysm sac remodeling, and device patency. Overall, 50 devices were implanted in 38 patients with a median age of 69 (IQR 62-78) years, and 1.6 bridging stent grafts per vessel were implanted through transfemoral (22/50; 44%) or upper extremity access (28/50; 56%). Primary technical success and assisted technical success were 97% (37/38) and 100% (38/38), respectively. No migration, no type I or III endoleaks, no stroke, colonic ischemia, aneurysm rupture, or conversion during the early and mid-term follow-ups (11 months, IQR 5-26) were observed. Aneurysm sac enlargement or shrinkage was observed in 0% (0/38) and 16% (6/38) patients, respectively. E-iliac-related re-interventions were seen only during the early follow-up: two thrombectomies with bare-metal stent relining after thrombosis of the iliac limb. Bridging stent graft and E-iliac patency during the mid-term follow-up were 100%. E-iliac showed encouraging mid-term results in the treatment of aortoiliac aneurysms with high technical success and a low re-intervention rate.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Pulses of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) with a predominantly anterior-posterior (AP) or posterior-anterior (PA) current direction over the primary motor cortex appear to activate distinct excitatory inputs to corticospinal neurons. In contrast, very few reports have examined whether the inhibitory neurons responsible for short-interval intracortical inhibition (SICI) are sensitive to TMS current direction. OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether SICI evaluated with AP and PA conditioning stimuli (CSPA and CSAP) activate different inhibitory pathways. SICI was always assessed using a PA-oriented test stimulus (TSPA). METHODS: Using two superimposed TMS coils, CSPA and CSAP were applied at interstimulus intervals (ISI) of 1-5 ms before a TSPA, and at a range of different intensities. Using a triple stimulation design, we then tested whether SICI at ISI of 3 ms using opposite directions of CS (SICICSPA3 and SICICSAP3) interacted differently with three other forms of inhibition, including SICI at ISI of 2 ms (SICICSPA2), cerebellum-motor cortex inhibition (CBI 5 ms) and short-latency afferent inhibition (SAI 22 ms). Finally, we compared the effect of tonic and phasic voluntary contraction on SICICSPA3 and SICICSAP3. RESULTS: CSAP produced little SICI at ISIs = 1 and 2 ms. However, at ISI = 3 ms, both CSAP and CSPA were equally effective at the same percent of maximum stimulator output. Despite this apparent similarity, combining SICICSPA3 or SICICSAP3 with other forms of inhibition led to quite different results: SICICSPA3 interacted in complex ways with CBI, SAI and SICICSPA2, whereas the effect of SICICSAP3 appeared to be quite independent of them. Although SICICSPA and SICICSAP were both reduced by the same amount during voluntary tonic contraction compared with rest, in a simple reaction time task SICICSAP was disinhibited much earlier following the imperative signal than SICICSPA. CONCLUSIONS: SICICSPA appears to activate a different inhibitory pathway to that activated by SICICSAP. The difference is behaviourally relevant since the pathways are controlled differently during volitional contraction. The results may explain some previous pathological data and open the possibility of testing whether these pathways are differentially recruited in a range of tasks.
