High-Resolution CT Angiogram for Lower Extremity Vein Mapping.

High-resolution CT angiogram (CTA) has replaced traditional diagnostic angiography as the main preoperative imaging modality for vascular surgery patients. Although the use of CTA is increasing for arterial imaging, it has not been used routinely for vein mapping. The goal of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of CTA for venous anatomy and compare it to a standard venous duplex ultrasound (DUS). When the vein was used for bypass, the quality and size of the vein were evaluated in the operating room. As part of a preoperative workup before lower extremity revascularization, 16 patients underwent a CTA followed by a DUS. Although the CTA provided useful arterial anatomy, the greater saphenous vein (GSV) was also evaluated. In total, 22 GSV were evaluated in 11 patients. The vein diameter was measured by CTA at four locations: saphenofemoral junction, midthigh, knee joint, and midcalf region. Duplication or other anomalies were also noted, when present. These measurements were taken by an interventional radiologist independently and before the DUS. Routine vein mapping with diameter measurements were then performed with DUS in a vascular laboratory by registered vascular technicians. Measurements for each limb were then compared between CTA and DUS using linear regression (mean ± SD). There was no statistical difference in the diameter of the GSV when measured using a CT or a DUS at the standard points of measurements. Furthermore, the operative findings confirmed the CTA to be very accurate. There were four duplications in the GSV which were all seen on the CTA, whereas only two of these were identified by DUS. There was one vein found to be sclerotic and unusable by DUS that was not identified by CTA. CTA is as accurate as DUS for evaluation of superficial venous anatomy in the lower extremities. CTA can provide global anatomy and can be used as a one-stop imaging modality for both arterial and venous anatomy. However, sclerosis is not detected by CTA.

Delayed management of Grade III blunt aortic injury: Series from a Level I trauma center.

BACKGROUND: Blunt aortic injuries (BAIs) are traditionally treated as surgical emergencies, with the majority of repairs performed in an urgent fashion within 24 hours, irrespective of the grade of aortic injury. These patients are often underresuscitated and often have multiple other trauma issues that need to be addressed. This study reviews a single center's experience comparing urgent (<24 hours) thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR) versus delayed (>24 hours) TEVAR for Grade III BAI. METHODS: All patients undergoing TEVAR for BAI at a single institution between March 2004 and March 2014 were reviewed (n = 43). Patients with Grade I, II, or IV aortic injuries as well as those who were repaired with an open procedure or who lacked preoperative imaging were excluded from the analysis. Demographics, intraoperative data, postoperative survival, and complications were compared. RESULTS: During this period, there were 43 patients with blunt thoracic aortic injury. There were 29 patients with Grade III or higher aortic injuries. Of these 29 patients, 1 declined surgery, 2 were repaired with an open procedure, 10 underwent urgent TEVAR, and 16 had initial observation. Of these 16, 13 underwent TEVAR in a delayed fashion (median, 9 days; range, 2-91 days), and 3 died of non-aortic-related pathology. Comparing the immediate repair group versus the delayed repair group, there were no significant demographic differences. Trauma classification scores were similar, although patients in the delayed group had a higher number of nonaortic injuries. The 30-day survival was similar between the two groups (9 of 10 vs. 12 of 16), with no mortalities caused by aortic pathology in either group. CONCLUSION: Watchful waiting may be permissible in patients with Grade III BAI with other associated multisystem trauma. This allows for a repair in a more controlled environment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, level V.

Prostate cancer and urinary incontinence.

Prostate cancer is the third most common cancer worldwide and an increasing proportion of men are being diagnosed with localised disease. Urinary incontinence is uncommon in healthy men, but may develop as a result of curative treatment for prostate cancer. The optimal therapy remains undefined so the treatment associated morbidity is an important determinant in patient choice. Urinary incontinence may also develop from tumour progression during deferred treatment, sphincter involvement in advanced disease or surgery for symptomatic malignant bladder outlet obstruction. As urinary incontinence is known to have a significant impact on health related quality of life, we have reviewed the literature on incontinence related to prostate cancer and its treatment.