Robot assisted Aortic and Non-aortic Vascular Operations.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical experience with 310 robot assisted vascular procedures. The da Vinci system has been used by a variety of disciplines for laparoscopic procedures but the use of robots in vascular surgery is still relatively uncommon. METHODS: From November 2005 to May 2014, 310 robot assisted vascular operations were performed. Two hundred and twenty four patients were prospectively evaluated for occlusive disease, 61 patients for abdominal aortic aneurysm, four for a common iliac artery aneurysm, four for a splenic artery aneurysm, one for a internal mammary artery aneurysm, and after the unsuccessful endovascular treatment five for hybrid procedures, two patients for median arcuate ligament release and nine for endoleak II treatment post EVAR. Among these patients, 224 underwent robotic occlusive disease treatment (Group I), 65 robotic aorto-iliac aneurysm surgery (Group II) and 21 other robotic procedures (Group III). RESULTS: A total of 298 cases (96.1%) were successfully completed robotically. In 10 patients (3.2%) conversion was necessary. The 30 day mortality was 0.3%, and two (0.6%) late prosthetic infections were seen. Targeted Group I and Group II patients were compared. Robotic ilio-femoral bypass, aorto-femoral bypass, or aorto-iliac thrombo-endarterectomy with prosthetic patch (Group I) required an operative time of 194 (range, 127-315) minutes and robotic aorto-iliac aneurysm surgery (Group II), 253 (range, 185-360) minutes. The mean aortic cross clamping time was 37 minutes in Group I and 93 minutes in Group II. The mean blood loss was more significant in Group II (1,210 mL) than in Group I (320 mL). CONCLUSION: From a practical point of view, the greatest advantage of the robot assisted procedure has been the speed and relative simplicity of construction of the vascular anastomosis. This experience with robot assisted laparoscopic surgery has demonstrated the feasibility of this technique in different areas of vascular surgery.

Incidence and Risk Factors of Perioperative Stroke in Noncardiac, and Nonaortic and Its Major Branches Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative stroke, defined as a stroke that occurs during an operation until 30 days postoperatively, is an uncommon but devastating complication. Studies regarding perioperative stroke in noncardiac and nonmajor vessels surgery are scarce. METHODS: Patients aged 18 years and older who underwent noncardiac, and nonaortic and its major branches surgery between January 2009 and December 2013 were included. A surgeon-matched control study forming a case-to-control ratio of 1:4 was conducted. Patients' characteristics, comorbidities, preoperative and perioperative stroke risks, stroke types, and types of surgical procedure were collected and analyzed by descriptive statistics. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to identify significant risk factors of perioperative strokes (P <.05). RESULTS: Forty-two out of 55,648 noncardiovascular surgery patients developed perioperative strokes, resulting in an incidence of .075%. Age (adjusted OR 1.04; 95% CI 1-1.08, P = .42), valvular heart disease (adjusted OR 6.18; 95% CI 1.35-28.33, P = .019), previous stroke (adjusted OR 7.06; 95% CI 1.74-28.75, P = .006), emergency surgery (adjusted OR 8.13; 95% CI 2.05-32.25, P = .003), and postoperative hypotension (adjusted OR 5.1; 95% CI 1.11-23.45, P = .036) were significant predictors of perioperative strokes by multivariable analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of perioperative stroke found was comparable to the previous similar studies. Advanced age, pre-existing valvular heart disease, previous stroke, emergency surgery, and postoperative hypotension were the significant risk factors determined in this study.

Open versus endovascular repair of penetrating non-aortic arterial injuries: A systematic review and meta analysis.

BACKGROUND: Non-aortic arterial injuries are common and are associated with high morbidity and mortality. Historically, open surgical repair (OSR) was the conventional method of repair. With recent advancements in minimally invasive techniques, endovascular repair (ER) has gained popularity. We sought to compare outcomes in patients undergoing endovascular and open repairs of traumatic non-aortic penetrating arterial injuries. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted using MEDLINE (OVID), Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus Database from January 1st, 1990, to March 20th, 2023. Titles and abstracts were screened, followed by full text review. Articles assessing clinically important outcomes between OSR and ER in penetrating arterial injuries were included. Exclusion criteria included blunt injuries, aortic injuries, pediatric populations, review articles, and non-English articles. Odds ratios (OR) and Cohen's d ratios were used to quantify differences in morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 3770 articles were identified, of which 8 met inclusion criteria and were included in the review. The articles comprised a total of 8369 patients of whom 90 % were male with a median age of 28 years. 85 % of patients were treated with OSR while 15 % underwent ER. With regards to injury characteristics, those who underwent ER were less likely to present with concurrent venous injuries (OR: 0.41; 95 %CI: 0.18, 0.94; p = 0.03). Regarding hospital outcomes, patients who underwent ER had a lower likelihood of in-hospital or 30-day mortality (OR: 0.72; 95 %CI: 0.55, 0.95; p = 0.02) and compartment syndrome (OR: 0.29, 95 %CI: 0.12, 0.71; p = 0.007). The overall risk of bias was moderate. CONCLUSION: Endovascular repair of non-aortic penetrating arterial injuries is increasingly common, however open repair remains the most common approach. Compared to ER, OSR was associated with higher odds of compartment syndrome and mortality. Further prospective research is warranted to determine the patient populations and injury patterns that most significantly benefit from an endovascular approach. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Systematic Reviews & Meta-Analyses.

Primary Non-Aortic Lesions Are Not Rare in Marfan Syndrome and Are Associated with Aortic Dissection Independently of Age.

PURPOSE: The study sought to estimate the prevalence of primary non-aortic lesions (PNAL) unrelated to extension of aortic dissection (AD) in a cohort of patients with Marfan syndrome (MFS). METHODS: Adult patients presenting with pathogenic FBN1 mutations and an available pan-aortic contrast-enhanced CTA in eight French MFS clinics from April to October 2018 were included. Clinical and radiological data, particularly the presence of aortic lesions and PNAL (including aneurysm and ectasia), were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: Out of 138 patients, 28 (20.3%) had PNAL. In total, 27 aneurysms in 13 patients and 41 ectasias in 19 patients were reported mainly in the subclavian, iliac, and vertebral segments. Four patients (31%) with aneurysms and none with ectasia required prophylactic intervention during follow-up (median: 46 months). In multivariate analysis, factors associated with PNAL were history of AD (OR = 3.9, 95%CI: 1.3-12.1, p = 0.018), history of previous descending aortic surgery (OR = 10.3, 95%CI: 2.2-48.3, p = 0.003) and age (per 10 years OR = 1.6, 95%CI: 1.1-2.4, p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: PNAL is not rare in MFS patients with evolutive aortic disease. Natural history may differ between aneurysms and ectasia, emphasizing the need for standardized definitions and systematic screening for PNAL.