Frequency of perigraft hygroma after open aortic reconstruction.

OBJECTIVE: The incidence of perigraft hygroma (PGH) development after aortic reconstruction remains poorly defined and its clinical relevance is questionable. This study was designed to establish the incidence of and determine the risk factors associated with PGH formation and its outcomes. METHODS: Patients who underwent open aortic reconstruction for either aneurysmal or occlusive disease with an expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) or polyester graft from 2004 to 2018 were retrospectively reviewed (n = 262). Only those who had follow-up imaging 3 or more months after repair were included. Patients with mixed graft types were excluded. PGH was defined as a perigraft fluid collection of 30 mm or greater in diameter with a radiodensity of 30 or fewer Hounsfield units on computed tomography at a minimum of 3 postoperative months. Analysis was conducted between patients with and without PGH. RESULTS: One hundred forty patients met the inclusion criteria: 88 were treated with ePTFE and 52 with polyester grafts. Twenty-three patients (16.4%) were found to have radiologic evidence of PGH. PGH developed more frequently in patients with ePTFE (21/88 [23.9%]) compared with those with polyester grafts (2/52 [3.8%]) (P = .002). Mean PGH size was 63.5 ± 36.4 mm (range, 33-153 mm) and the average time to PGH detection 27.7 months (range, 3-112 months). Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. Patients who developed PGH had larger aneurysms, more often received ePTFE grafts, had larger graft diameters, and had bifurcated grafts. The overall mortality was 32.1% at a mean follow-up of 5.2 years. The 5-year mortality rates were similar between patients with and without PGH (26.1% vs 18.8%; P = .41). Of the 23 patients with PGH, 4 (all with ePTFE) presented with symptoms related to the PGH. The average size of symptomatic and asymptomatic PGH were 11.5 and 4.8 cm, respectively. Mortality rates overall were similar between those with and without symptoms (50.0% vs 36.8%; P = .99). CONCLUSIONS: Nearly one-quarter of aortic reconstructions with ePTFE are associated with PGH formation compared with 4% with polyester. Clinically significant PGH-related symptom development occurs in 20%. Patient education and close surveillance are warranted. Manufacturer's device modification is needed.

Comparative occupational radiation exposure between fixed and mobile imaging systems.

OBJECTIVE: Endovascular intervention exposes surgical staff to scattered radiation, which varies according to procedure and imaging equipment. The purpose of this study was to determine differences in occupational exposure between procedures performed with fixed imaging (FI) in an endovascular suite compared with conventional mobile imaging (MI) in a standard operating room. METHODS: A series of 116 endovascular cases were performed over a 4-month interval in a dedicated endovascular suite with FI and conventional operating room with MI. All cases were performed at a single institution and radiation dose was recorded using real-time dosimetry badges from Unfors RaySafe (Hopkinton, Mass). A dosimeter was mounted in each room to establish a radiation baseline. Staff dose was recorded using individual badges worn on the torso lead. Total mean air kerma (Kar; mGy, patient dose) and mean case dose (mSv, scattered radiation) were compared between rooms and across all staff positions for cases of varying complexity. Statistical analyses for all continuous variables were performed using t test and analysis of variance where appropriate. RESULTS: A total of 43 cases with MI and 73 cases with FI were performed by four vascular surgeons. Total mean Kar, and case dose were significantly higher with FI compared with MI. (mean ± standard error of the mean, 523 ± 49 mGy vs 98 ± 19 mGy; P < .00001; 0.77 ± 0.03 mSv vs 0.16 ± 0.08 mSv, P < .00001). Exposure for the primary surgeon and assistant was significantly higher with FI compared with MI. Mean exposure for all cases using either imaging modality, was significantly higher for the primary surgeon and assistant than for support staff (ie, nurse, radiology technologist) beyond 6 feet from the X-ray source, indicated according to one-way analysis of variance (MI: P < .00001; FI: P < .00001). Support staff exposure was negligible and did not differ between FI and MI. Room dose stratified according to case complexity (Kar) showed statistically significantly higher scattered radiation in FI vs MI across all quartiles. CONCLUSIONS: The scattered radiation is several-fold higher with FI than MI across all levels of case complexity. Radiation exposure decreases with distance from the radiation source, and is negligible outside of a 6-foot radius. Modern endovascular suites allow high-fidelity imaging, yet additional strategies to minimize exposure and occupational risk are needed.

Pulse volume recording does not enhance segmental pressure readings for peripheral arterial disease stratification.

BACKGROUND: Noninvasive vascular laboratory determinations for peripheral arterial disease (PAD) often combine pulse volume recordings (PVRs), segmental pressure readings (SPs), and Doppler waveform traces (DWs) into a single diagnostic report. Our objective was to assess the corresponding diagnostic values for each test when subjected to interpretation by 4 vascular specialists. METHODS: A total of 2226 non-invasive diagnostic reports were reviewed through our institutional database between January 2009 and December 2011. Data from noninvasive records with corresponding angiograms performed within 3 months led to a cohort of 76 patients (89 limbs) for analysis. Four vascular specialists, blinded to the angiographic results, stratified the noninvasive studies as representative of normal, <50% "subcritical," or ≥50% "critical" stenosis at the upper thigh, lower thigh, popliteal, and calf segments using 4 randomized noninvasive modalities: (1) PVR alone; (2) SP alone; (3) SP+DW; and (4) SP+DW+PVR. The angiographic records were independently graded by another 3 evaluators and used as a standard to determine the noninvasive diagnostic values and interobserver agreements for each modality. Statistical tests used include the Fleiss-modified kappa analysis, Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance with Dunn's multiple comparison test, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, and the unpaired t-test with Welch's correction. RESULTS: Interobserver variance for all modalities was high, except for SP. When surveying for any stenosis (<50% and ≥50%), sensitivity (range 25-75%) was lower than specificity (range 50-84%) for all modalities. When surveying for critical stenosis only (≥50%), sensitivity (range 27-54%) was also lower than specificity (range 68-92%). Accuracy for detecting any stenosis with SP+DW was significantly higher than with PVR alone (66 ± 7% vs. 56 ± 12%, P = 0.017). There was a significant reduction in accuracy when including incompressible readings within the SP-only analysis compared with exclusion of incompressible vessels (P = 0.0006). However, the effect of vessel incompressibility on accuracy was removed with the addition of DW (P = 0.17) to the protocol. CONCLUSIONS: SP has the greatest interobserver agreement in evaluation of PAD and can be used preferentially for PAD stratification. Given the lower accuracy of PVR for detecting either subcritical or critical disease, PVR tests can be omitted from the noninvasive vascular examination without a significant reduction in overall diagnostic value and can be reserved for patients with incompressible vessels.

Successful management of life-threatening hemorrhage in a patient with synchronous lupus anticoagulant and factor VIII inhibitor.

Acquired factor VIII inhibitor is increasingly recognized as a cause of major soft tissue hemorrhage. The laboratory diagnosis can be obscured by the synchronous presence of the lupus anticoagulant, an extremely rare occurrence that has been reported outside the vascular surgery literature. Vascular surgeons should be knowledgeable of factor VIII inhibitor and aware that it can present with other blood disorders, making the diagnosis more difficult and management more complex. This case report describes such a patient and reviews the current literature on this topic.