Arteriovenous fistula aneurysmorrhaphy is associated with improved patency and decreased vascular access abandonment.

BACKGROUND: Upper extremity hemodialysis arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) can become aneurysmal over time due to repeated cannulation and/or outflow steno-occlusive disease. The optimal surgical management of aneurysmal AVFs (aneurysmorrhaphy vs interposition graft) has remained unclear. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review in which current procedural terminology codes were used to screen for patients who had undergone surgical treatment of aneurysmal AVFs between 2016 and 2021 at a single hospital system. The patients were included after a review of the operative reports. The cases were divided by surgical procedure (aneurysmorrhaphy vs interposition graft placement). The patients who had undergone primary AVF ligation or other types of repair were excluded. The primary outcomes were primary assisted and secondary patency, and the secondary outcome was dialysis access abandonment. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression was used to test the association between the type of AVF aneurysm repair and the primary and secondary outcomes. RESULTS: From 2016 to 2021, 6951 patients had undergone 16,190 dialysis access procedures. Of these procedures, 381 (2.4%) were related to surgical treatment of an aneurysmal AVF. We excluded 58 primary AVF ligation cases and 20 cases involving other types of repair, leaving 303 cases for analysis. These were divided into two groups: aneurysmorrhaphy (n = 123; 41%) and interposition graft (n = 180; 59%). No differences were found between the groups in male gender (68% vs 63%), hypertension (98% vs 98%), or central stenosis (14% vs 22%). The patients who had undergone aneurysmorrhaphy were younger (median age, 54 years vs 59 years); had had a lower rate of diabetes (41% vs 59%), coronary artery disease (41% vs 58%), and congestive heart failure (41% vs 55%); and were less likely to have undergone upper arm access (72% vs 92%). The median follow-up was 11.1 months (interquartile range, 3.6-25.2 months). No differences were found in the incidence of 30-day wound complications (1% vs 3%) or surgical site infections (4% vs 6%). On multivariable Cox regression, interposition graft placement was associated with the loss of primary assisted patency (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-4.95), loss of secondary patency (aHR, 3.10; 95% CI, 1.21-7.94), and abandonment of dialysis access (aHR, 3.07; 95% CI, 1.61-5.87; P < .05 for all) at 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: AVF aneurysmorrhaphy was associated with improved primary assisted and secondary patency and decreased abandonment of dialysis access. We suggest using aneurysmorrhaphy when AVF aneurysms are indicated for repair. However, individual factors such as patient comorbidities, AVF anatomy, remaining dialysis access options, and patient preference should be considered when planning the surgical approach.

Comparison of CD HORIZON SPIRE spinous process plate stabilization and pedicle screw fixation after anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Invited submission from the Joint Section Meeting On Disorders of the Spine and Peripheral Nerves, March 2005.

OBJECT: The authors present the early clinical results obtained in patients who underwent SPIRE spinous process plate fixation following anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF). METHODS: Between May 2003 and January 2005, 32 patients underwent titanium cage and bone morphogenetic protein-augmented ALIF and subsequent SPIRE (21 cases) or bilateral pedicle screw (BPS; 11 cases) fixation. Pedicle screws were implanted using either the open approach (three cases) or using a tubular retractor (eight cases). Patients' charts were reviewed for operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), hospital length of stay (LOS), and evidence of pseudarthrosis or hardware failure. In SPIRE plate-treated patients, the median EBL (75 ml) was lower than in BPS-treated patients (open BPS [150 ml]; tubular BPS [125 ml]). The median operative time in SPIRE plate-treated patients was also shorter (164 minutes compared with 239 and 250 minutes in the open and tubular BPS, respectively). The median LOS was 3 days for both the SPIRE and tubular BPS groups, but 4 days in the open BPS group. There were no instances of major surgery-induced complication, pseudarthrosis, or hardware failure during mean follow-up periods of 5.5, 7.2, and 4.9 months in the SPIRE, open PS, and tubular BPS groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The SPIRE plate is easy to implant and is associated with minimal operative risk. Compared with BPS/rod constructs, SPIRE plate fixation leads to less EBL and shorter operative time, without an increase in the rate of pseudarthrosis. Hospital LOS was also shorter in SPIRE plate-treated patients, which is consistent with the goals of minimal access spinal technologies.

Aortic reconstruction after complex injury of the mid-transverse arch.

We report the case of a 28-year-old man who suffered a transection of the mid-transverse aortic arch between the innominate and left common carotid artery with complete avulsion of the left common carotid artery after blunt trauma. This patient underwent successful aortic arch replacement proximal to the left subclavian artery and reimplantation of the innominate and left carotid arteries using profound hypothermic circulatory arrest and selective antegrade cerebral perfusion. A literature review revealed no other previous reports of survival after this type of injury.

Comparison of the mini-open versus laparoscopic approach for anterior lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective review.

OBJECTIVE: The anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) procedure has become an accepted fusion technique for treating patients with degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine. Many consider laparoscopic ALIF to be the least invasive approach. A modification of the open laparotomy--the "mini-open" approach--is an attractive alternative. In this retrospective review, a comparison of these two ALIF approaches is presented. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of 98 patients who underwent ALIF procedures between 1996 and 2001 in which either a mini-open or a laparoscopic approach was used. Patient demographics, intraoperative parameters, length of hospitalization, and technique-related complications associated with the use of these two approaches were compared. The subset of patients who underwent L5-S1 ALIF procedures was analyzed separately. Statistical analysis was conducted with chi2 and Student's paired t tests. RESULTS: Between 1996 and 2001, a total of 98 patients underwent ALIF. A laparoscopic approach was used in 47 of these patients, and the mini-open technique was used in the other 51 patients. Operative preparation and procedure time were longer with the use of a laparoscopic approach, and significantly greater during L5-S1 ALIF procedures (P < 0.05). A marginal but significant increase in length of stay was observed after mini-open ALIF procedures (P < 0.05). The immediate postoperative complication rate was greater after mini-open ALIF procedures, 17.6 versus 4.3% (P < 0.05); however, the rate of retrograde ejaculation was higher in the laparoscopic group, 45 versus 6% (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Both the laparoscopic and mini-open techniques are effective approaches to use when performing ALIF procedures. On the basis of the data obtained in this retrospective review, the laparoscopic approach does not seem to have a definitive advantage over the mini-open exposure, particularly in an L5-S1 ALIF procedure. In our opinion, the mini-open approach possesses a number of theoretical advantages; however, the individual surgeon's preference ultimately is likely to be the dictating factor.