Spinal Cord Ischemia and Reinterventions Following thoracic endovascular repair for Acute Type B Aortic Dissections.

OBJECTIVE: The technical aspects of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for acute type B aortic dissection (TBAD), specifically the location of proximal seal zone (PSZ) (need to cover the left subclavian artery [LSA]), distal seal zone (DSZ) (length of aortic coverage), benefit of LSA revascularization, and prophylactic lumbar drainage are still debated. Each of these issues has potential benefits but also has known risks. This study aims to identify factors associated with reintervention and spinal cord ischemia (SCI) following TEVAR for acute TBAD with a zone 3 entry tear. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative was queried for TEVARs performed for acute TBAD with zone 3 entry tear, zone 3 proximal zone of disease, treated with TEVAR extending between zone 2 and zone 5. The primary outcomes were SCI and related reintervention. Secondary outcomes were stroke, arm ischemia and retrograde type A dissection (RTAD). The exposure variables were PSZ 2 vs. 3, DSZ 4 vs. 5, prophylactic lumbar drain, and LSA revascularization. Univariate analyses were conducted with chi-square analysis and multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate association with outcomes. RESULTS: Of 583 patients who met inclusion criteria, 266 had PSZ 2 and 317 had PSZ 3. On univariate analysis, PSZ 2 was associated with a higher rate of reintervention, but PSZ2 was not significant on multivariable analysis after accounting for age, sex, race, smoking, PSZ, DSZ, prophylactic lumbar drain and LSA patency. PSZ 2 was not associated with SCI, arm ischemia, or RTAD. PSZ 2 was associated with a trend towards a higher rate of stroke. DSZ 4 and DSZ 5 were performed in 161 and 422 TEVARs, respectively, and DSZ 5 was associated with a higher rate of SCI on univariate (3 [1.9%] vs. 39 [9.2%], P = .01) and multivariable (OR, 7.384, [95% CI, 2.193 - 24.867]; P = .001) analyses. Prophylactic lumbar drain placement was not statistically significantly associated with SCI, but lack of postoperative LSA patency was associated with SCI (OR 2.966, [95% CI, 1.016 - 8.656]; P = .05). CONCLUSIONS: This study found that PSZ 2 was not associated with lower reinterventions or higher rates of SCI but trended towards a higher rate of stroke than PSZ 3. Additionally, DSZ 5 was strongly associated with SCI when compared with DSZ 4, highlighting the importance of limiting aortic coverage to coverage of the proximal entry tear when possible.

Use of Iliac Branch Endoprosthesis to Rescue Inadvertent False Lumen Deployment of the Innominate Branch Stent During Physician-Modified Fenestrated-Branched Aortic Arch Repair.

A 70-year-old male with a history of 3 prior median sternotomies and on anticoagulation presented with acute chest and back pain associated with a pseudoaneurysm of the ascending and aortic arch in the setting of residual dissection involving the innominate, proximal right carotid, and subclavian arteries. A physician-modified triple vessel fenestrated-branched arch endograft was deployed. The innominate branch stent was deployed from the right carotid cut down, while the left carotid and left subclavian branch stents were placed from a femoral approach. Postoperatively, the innominate branch was found to be deployed in the false lumen of the dissected native innominate artery, leading to continued pressurization of the pseudoaneurysm. This was rescued by placing a Gore Iliac Branch Endoprosthesis (IBE) into the innominate branch through a temporary conduit sewn to the right carotid artery with a right subclavian branch placed via a brachial artery cut down into the internal iliac gate. The use of IBE allowed branch stent extension past the dissected native vessels. The patient had an uneventful recovery without neurologic complications. At 3-month follow-up, the patient remains well with an excluded pseudoaneurysm, and patent bifurcated innominate, bilateral carotid, and subclavian artery branches. A Gore IBE can be utilized in a dissected innominate artery to create an innominate branch device during fenestrated-branched endovascular arch repair.

Aortic rupture during STABILISE (stent-assisted balloon-induced intimal disruption and relamination in aortic dissection repair) technique.

The STABILISE (stent-assisted balloon-induced intimal disruption and relamination in aortic dissection repair) technique has shown promising results for treating type B aortic dissections, but the potential exists for fatal adverse effects. We present a case of infrarenal aortic rupture while using a compliant balloon to balloon mold the true lumen inside previously placed bare metal stents during the STABILISE technique. Caution is advised for providers who wish to perform the STABILISE technique, and we recommend using a semi-compliant balloon sized to the smallest total aortic diameter to mitigate the risk of rupture.

Emergency and Compassionate Use of a Novel Ascending Endograft for Ascending and Arch Aortic Pathology.

PURPOSE: Patients with complicated ascending aortic pathology, including patients with acute type A aortic dissection may be at extreme risk for open repair. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), infrequently used for the ascending aorta, may be considered an alternative in this setting. We describe early results for emergency and compassionate (E&C) use of a novel endograft, specifically designed for use to treat pathology of the ascending aorta. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This case series evaluated 19 patients (mean age, 68.84±13.12 years; 57.9% female) treated with ascending TEVAR for acute and chronic acute (4), subacute (1), or chronic (1) aortic dissection or pseudoaneurysm (13). Six of the 19 patients (31.5%) were treated under compassionate use and 13 patients (68.4%) were treated under the emergency use exemption. Ten patients (52.6%) received additional devices to extend treatment into the arch and descending aorta. RESULTS: Device delivery was achieved in all patients (100%). Thirty-day mortality and stroke occurred in 3 patients (15.8%) and in 1 patient (5.3%), respectively. In 1 patient (5.3%), with an Unanticipated Adverse Device Event, the aorta ruptured when the endograft eroded into the adventitial portion of dissection site at the posterior aspect of the ascending wall. Devices were explanted in 2 patients (10.5%), 353 and 610 days after the index procedure, respectively. Six patients had endoleaks (31.6%), including type I (n=2, 10.5%), type II endoleaks (n=3, 15.8%), and indeterminate endoleak (n=1, 5.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Delivery and deployment of a novel ascending thoracic stent graft with or without an additional branched arch extension is feasible in patients with complex anatomy and pathology, including acute aortic dissection and pseudoaneurysm. Additional experience with this novel device will further refine the patient population most suitable for endovascular ascending aortic repair for these pathologies. CLINICAL IMPACT: This study describes a novel stent graft specifically designed for treatment of ascending aortic pathology, including acute type A dissection. The patients described in this series constituted a group outside the formal US FDA sponsored clinical trial, and were those accepted as part of an emergency and compassionate use basis.

Sandwich thoracic branch endoprosthesis technique for endovascular repair of thoracic aortic aneurysm with aberrant right subclavian artery.

Subclavian artery coverage is frequently required to achieve an adequate proximal seal during thoracic endovascular aortic repair. The thoracic branch endoprosthesis (TBE; W.L. Gore & Associates) is the first U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved branched device for thoracic endovascular aortic repair, designed for left subclavian artery incorporation. However, anatomic suitability of the TBE has been shown to be limited. In the present report, we describe a novel technique using the TBE in a sandwich periscope configuration to allow for emergent repair of a ruptured thoracic aortic aneurysm with a highly angulated proximal seal zone and aberrant right subclavian artery.

Branch-first aortic arch replacement strategy decreases perioperative mortality.

OBJECTIVE: Sparce evidence suggests superiority of total arch replacement with the branch-first technique and antegrade cerebral perfusion over conventional techniques with respect to morbidity and mortality. Thus, we aimed to compare perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing traditional total arch replacement versus branch-first total arch replacement. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 144 patients undergoing total arch replacement from January 2017 to December 2021. Patients were dichotomized based on technique, either traditional total arch replacement or branch-first total arch replacement. Primary end points were 30-day mortality and adverse events. Branch-first total arch replacement and traditional total arch replacement cohorts were compared using Student t tests and chi-square tests. Univariable and multivariable logistic regressions were performed to identify risk factors associated with 30-day mortality. RESULTS: A total of 68 patients (47.2%) underwent traditional total arch replacement, and 76 patients (52.8%) underwent branch-first total arch replacement. The branch-first total arch replacement cohort had higher rates of chronic kidney disease, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, and previous myocardial infarction (P = .04, .002, .035, and .031 respectively). The majority of total arch replacements (78, 55%) were performed for aneurysmal disease. Median antegrade cerebral perfusion times were significantly shorter in the branch-first total arch replacement cohort (P = .001). There were no significant differences in rates of stroke, reintubation, postoperative lumbar drainage, renal failure, reoperation for bleeding, or prolonged ventilation between total arch replacement cohorts. The branch-first total arch replacement group had significantly lower 30-day mortality compared with the traditional total arch replacement group (4% vs 19%, P = .004). After adjustment for chronic kidney disease, nonelective status, antegrade cerebral perfusion time, rates of dissections arriving in extremis or with malperfusion, and primary surgeon, undergoing a branch-first total arch replacement was associated with a 93% reduced odds of 30-day mortality (odds ratio, 0.07, 95% CI, 0.009-0.48, P = .007). CONCLUSIONS: We provide evidence that branch-first total arch replacement significantly reduces 30-day mortality compared with traditional total arch replacement.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Thoracoabdominal Aortic Aneurysm or Dissection: Treatment Planning and Follow-Up.

As the incidence of thoracoabdominal aortic pathology (aneurysm and dissection) rises and the complexity of endovascular and surgical treatment options increases, imaging follow-up of patients remains crucial. Patients with thoracoabdominal aortic pathology without intervention should be monitored carefully for changes in aortic size or morphology that could portend rupture or other complication. Patients who are post endovascular or open surgical aortic repair should undergo follow-up imaging to evaluate for complications, endoleak, or recurrent pathology. Considering the quality of diagnostic data, CT angiography and MR angiography are the preferred imaging modalities for follow-up of thoracoabdominal aortic pathology for most patients. The extent of thoracoabdominal aortic pathology and its potential complications involve multiple regions of the body requiring imaging of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis in most patients. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.

Use of retrograde left subclavian branch portal of Gore TAG thoracic branch endoprosthesis for physician-modified fenestrated branched endovascular repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm.

A 75-year-old man who had undergone zone 2 thoracic endovascular repair of a symptomatic penetrating aortic ulcer using a Gore TAG thoracic branch endoprosthesis (TBE) device (W.L. Gore & Associates) 5 years before had presented with an enlarging extent I thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm. A physician-modified five-vessel fenestrated-branched endograft repair was performed using preloaded wires. The visceral renal vessels were sequentially catheterized from the left brachial access via the TBE portal, and the endograft was deployed in staggered fashion. At 1 year of follow-up, imaging studies demonstrated a stable aneurysm sac, patent visceral renal branches, and no endoleak. The retrograde portal of Gore TAG TBE can facilitate fenestrated-branched endovascular repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms.

Readmission after early thoracic endovascular aortic repair versus medical management of acute type B aortic dissection.

BACKGROUND: The use of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for the management of acute uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (TBAD) has increased. Although the results from early studies were promising, larger randomized trials evaluating TEVAR are lacking. It is also unclear where sufficient equipoise exists for such trials. In the present study, we evaluated the number of readmissions and unplanned operations after TEVAR vs those after medical management as the initial treatment of acute uncomplicated TBAD and the frequency of each treatment in this population. METHODS: We performed a multi-institutional retrospective review of patients with acute TBAD from 2015 to 2020 with the 1-year outcomes available, excluding patients with prior aortic intervention or chronic, iatrogenic or traumatic etiologies. The primary exposure was TEVAR vs medical management at the index admission. The patient demographics, clinical presentation, and imaging findings were analyzed using bivariate and multivariate logistic regression for the primary outcomes of unplanned readmission and/or operation after the initial admission. The secondary outcomes were mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, renal failure requiring dialysis, retrograde type A dissection, and length of stay. We hypothesized that the readmissions would be higher with medical management. RESULTS: A total of 216 patients with TBAD (47 with complicated and 169 with uncomplicated) from two large academic centers were identified. Of the 169 patients with uncomplicated TBAD, 83 (49%) had been treated medically and 86 (51%) had undergone TEVAR at the initial admission. No differences were found in the demographics or high-risk imaging features at presentation. The medically managed patients had had higher rates of unplanned readmission (34% vs 9%; P = .0001) and operation (28% vs 8%; P = .0007) but shorter lengths of stay (6.3 vs 13.1 days; P < .0001). No differences were found in mortality, although the rate of myocardial infarction was higher in the medically managed group (10.8% vs 2.3%; P = .02). Although 28% of the medically managed patients had later required operation, they had had morbidity and mortality similar to those of patients who had undergone initial TEVAR. Initial medical management was associated with unplanned readmission (odds ratio, 8.3; P = .02) and the need for operation (odds ratio, 4.56; P = .006). No differences were found in the outcomes according to the involved aortic zones. CONCLUSIONS: In the present study, medical management of acute uncomplicated TBAD was associated with higher rates of readmission and the need for unplanned operation compared with TEVAR. However, no differences were found in the 1-year mortality for the patients for whom medical management had failed. Because one half of the patients had undergone medical management and one half had undergone early TEVAR, this finding suggests clinical equipoise for the treatment of acute uncomplicated TBAD. Therefore, a larger randomized trial appears warranted to determine whether a clear benefit exists for early TEVAR.

ARISE: First-In-Human Evaluation of a Novel Stent Graft to Treat Ascending Aortic Dissection.

BACKGROUND: Operative mortality for type A aortic dissection is still 10-20% at centers of excellence. Additionally, 10-20% are not considered as viable candidates for open surgical repair and not offered life-saving emergency surgery. ARISE is a multicenter investigation evaluating the novel GORE® Ascending Stent Graft (ASG; Flagstaff, AZ). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to assess early feasibility of using these investigational devices to treat ascending aortic dissection. METHODS: This a prospective, multicenter, non-randomized, single-arm study that enrolls patients at high surgical risk with appropriate anatomical requirements based on computed tomography imaging at 7 of 9 US sites. Devices are delivered transfemorally under fluoroscopic guidance. Primary endpoint is all-cause mortality at 30 days. Secondary endpoints include major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) at 30 days, 6 months, and 12 months. RESULTS: Nineteen patients were enrolled with a mean age of 75.7 years (range 47-91) and 11 (57.9%) were female. Ten (52.6%) had DeBakey type I disease, and the rest were type II. Sixteen (84.2%) of the patients were acute. Patients were treated with safe access, (7/19 (36.8%) percutaneous, 10/19 (52.6%) transfemoral, 2/19 (10.5%) iliac conduit), delivery, and deployment completed in all cases. Median procedure time was 154 mins (range 52-392) and median contrast used was 111 mL (range 75-200). MACCE at 30 days occurred in 5 patients including mortality 3/19 (15.8%), disabling stroke in 1/19 (5.3%), and myocardial infarction in 1/19 (5.3%). CONCLUSION: Results from the ARISE early feasibility study of a specific ascending stent graft device to treat ascending aortic dissection are promising.

Management strategy for lower extremity malperfusion due to acute aortic dissection.

OBJECTIVE: Aortic dissection can result in devastating cerebral, visceral, renal, spinal, and extremity ischemia. We describe the management and outcomes of patients presenting with aortic dissection and lower extremity malperfusion (LEM). METHODS: A single-center institutional aortic database was queried for patients with aortic dissection and LEM from 2011 to 2019. The primary end point was resolution of LEM after aortic repair. Secondary end points were amputation, in-hospital mortality, time to intervention, and postoperative complications. RESULTS: Of 769 patients with aortic dissection, 42 (5.5%) presented acutely with LEM: 16 with Stanford type A and 26 Stanford type B aortic dissection (age 55 ± 13 years; 90% men). Most presented as Rutherford IIB symptoms, but patients with type A had Rutherford III more often, compared with those with type B. Aortic repair was performed before limb interventions in 36 patients (86%; 19 TEVAR, 16 open arch and ascending repair, and 1 open descending aortic repair with fenestration). Seven (19%) had immediate failure with persistent malperfusion recognized in the operating room and underwent additional limb intervention, including extra-anatomic revascularization (n = 4), iliac stenting (n = 2), and femoral patch with septal fenestration or tacking (n = 2). Three patients (8%) had early delayed failure requiring extra-anatomic bypass in two and amputation in one. In contrast, six patients had limb-first intervention with extra-anatomic revascularization. None had immediate failure, but one-half had early delayed failure requiring proximal aortic intervention: two TEVAR and one open aortic fenestration. Limb-first patients were more likely to have early delayed failure compared with aortic dissection treated first patients (50% vs 8%; P = .029). The amputation rate was 2%, occurring in one type A patient. The overall in-hospital mortality was 7% (n = 3), with no difference between type A and type B aortic dissection. There was no difference in surgical site infection, postoperative dialysis need, stroke, and myocardial infarction. CONCLUSIONS: In patients presenting with acute aortic dissection with limb ischemia, resolution of the malperfusion occurs in the majority of cases after primary aortic dissection intervention, emphasizing the usefulness of urgent TEVAR for complicated type B and open repair of type A before lower extremity intervention. Limb-first interventions have a higher early delayed failure rate and thus require more frequent reoperation. However, the overall amputation rate in LEM owing to aortic dissection remains low.

Complications associated with lumbar drain placement for endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: We reviewed the complications associated with perioperative lumbar drain (LD) placement for endovascular aortic repair. METHODS: Patients who had undergone perioperative LD placement for endovascular repair of thoracic and thoracoabdominal aortic pathologies from 2010 to 2019 were reviewed. The primary endpoints were major and minor LD-associated complications. Complications that had resulted in neurological sequelae or had required an intervention or a delay in operation were defined as major. These included intracranial hemorrhage, symptomatic spinal hematoma, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak requiring intervention, meningitis, retained catheter tip, arachnoiditis, and traumatic (or bloody) tap resulting in delayed operation. Minor complications were defined as a bloody tap without a delay in surgery, asymptomatic epidural hematoma, and CSF leak with no intervention required. Isolated headaches were recorded separately owing to the minimal clinical impact. RESULTS: A total of 309 LDs had been placed in 268 consecutive patients for 222 thoracic endovascular aortic repairs, 85 complex endovascular aortic repairs (EVARs; fenestrated branched EVAR/parallel grafting), and 2 EVARs (age, 65 ± 13 years; 71% male) for aortic pathology, including aneurysm (47%), dissection (49%), penetrating aortic ulcer (3%), and traumatic injury (0.6%). A dedicated neurosurgical team performed all LD procedures; most were performed by the same individual, with a technical success rate of 98%. Radiologic guidance was required in 3%. The reasons for unsuccessful placement were body habitus (n = 2) and severe spinal disease (n = 3). Most were placed prophylactically (96%). The overall complication rate was 8.1% (4.2% major and 3.9% minor). Major complications included spinal hematoma with paraplegia in 1 patient, intracranial hemorrhage in 2, meningitis in 2, arachnoiditis in 3, CSF leak requiring a blood patch in 3, bloody tap delaying the operation in 1, and a retained catheter tip in 1 patient. Patients who had undergone previous LD placement had experienced significantly more major LD-related complications (12.2% vs 3%; P = .019). The rate of total LD-associated complications did not differ between prophylactic and emergent therapeutic placements (8.1% vs 7.7%; P = 1.00) nor between major or minor complications. On multivariate analysis, previous LD placement and an overweight body mass index were the only independent predictors of major LD-related complications. CONCLUSIONS: The complications associated with LD placement can be severe even when performed by a dedicated team. Previous LD placement and overweight body mass index were associated with a significantly greater risk of complications; however, emergent therapeutic placement was not. Although these risks are justified for therapeutic LD placement, the benefit of prophylactic LD placement to prevent paraplegia should be weighed against these serious complications.

Periscope sandwich stenting as an alternative to open cervical revascularization of left subclavian artery during zone 2 thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: Revascularization of the left subclavian artery (LSA) during zone 2 thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) maintains collateral circulation to decrease ischemic complications, including stroke, spinal cord ischemia, and upper extremity ischemia. Both open surgical and endovascular LSA revascularization techniques have been described, each with unique risks and benefits. We describe our "periscope sandwich" technique for the LSA during zone 2 TEVAR, which maintains antegrade access to the distal abdominal aorta if subsequent interventions are necessary. Technical results and short-term outcomes are compared with LSA open surgical debranching. METHODS: A single-institution retrospective review was performed for patients requiring zone 2 TEVAR with LSA revascularization by periscope sandwich technique or open surgical debranching with subclavian to carotid transposition (SCT) or carotid-subclavian bypass (CSB). The presenting aortic disease and perioperative details were recorded. Intraoperative angiography and postoperative computed tomography images were reviewed for occurrence of endoleak and branch patency. RESULTS: Between January 2013 and December 2018, the LSA was revascularized by periscope sandwich in 18 patients, SCT in 22 patients, and CSB in 13 patients. Compared with open surgical debranching, periscope sandwich had a lower median estimated blood loss (100 mL vs 200 mL for pooled SCT and CSB; P = .03) and lower median case duration (133.5 minutes vs 226 minutes; P < .001). Contrast material volume (120 mL vs 120 mL; P = .98) and fluoroscopy time (13.1 minutes vs 13.3 minutes; P = .92) did not differ significantly between the groups. There was no difference in aorta-related mortality (P = .14), and LSA patency was 100%. Median follow-up for the periscope sandwich group was 11 months, with an overall estimated 91% freedom from gutter leak at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: LSA periscope sandwich technique provides safe and effective LSA revascularization during zone 2 TEVAR. LSA periscope sandwich can be used emergently with off-the-shelf endovascular components and facilitates future branched-fenestrated endovascular repair of thoracoabdominal aortic diseases.

En Bloc AngioVac Removal of Thoracic Aortic Mass.

The AngioVac system, designed for suction during extracorporeal bypass, is used to aspirate masses, thrombi, and other undesirable material from the cardiovascular system. To date, it has been used extensively in the venous system and right side of the heart; however, its use in the arterial system has been limited because of smaller vessel sizes and the requirement for a 26F sheath. We report the case of a 45-year-old woman with a history of angiosarcoma who presented with acute embolic events that affected her spleen and lower extremities. We removed a large mobile mass en bloc from her distal thoracic aorta by using the AngioVac system as an alternative to surgical resection. The patient recovered with no recurrence. We discuss the benefits and challenges of using the AngioVac within small vessels of the arterial system.

The Disparity Between Public Utilization and Surgeon Awareness of the STS Patient Education Website.

BACKGROUND: Many online resources currently provide healthcare information to the public. In 2015, the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) created a multimedia web portal (ctsurgerypatients.org) to educate the public regarding cardiothoracic surgery and provide an informative tool to which cardiothoracic surgeons could refer patients. METHODS: A patient education task force was created, and disease-specific content was created for 25 pathological conditions. After launching the website online, a marketing campaign was initiated to make STS members aware of its availability. Website visits were monitored, and an online survey for public users was created. An email survey was sent to STS members to evaluate awareness and content. Surveys were analyzed for effectiveness and utilization by both public users and STS member surgeons. RESULTS: From 2016 to 2018, the website had more than 1 million visits, with visits increasing yearly. Surveyed user ratings of the website were positive regarding quality and utility of the information provided. STS member response was poor (379 responses of 6347 emails), and 78.3% of responders were unaware of the website. Surgeon responders were positive about the content, though many still refrain from referring patients. CONCLUSIONS: Online education for cardiothoracic surgery is seeing increased public use, with high ratings for content and utility. Despite aggressive marketing to STS members, most remain unaware of this website's existence. Those who are aware approve of its content, but adoption of referring patients to it has been slow. Improved strategies are necessary to make surgeons aware of this STS-provided service and increase patient referrals to it.