ObjectiveTo analyze the effectiveness of in vitro fenestration versus bypass surgery techniques in the treatment of type B aortic dissection involving the left subclavian artery by thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR).MethodsAmong the 53 patients with type B aortic dissection involving the left subclavian artery admitted to our center from January 2017 to October 2020, 23 underwent in vitro fenestration + TEVAR (a fenestration group with 18 males and 5 females aged 53.6±5.3 years), and 30 patients underwent left common carotid artery-left subclavian artery bypass + TEVAR (a bypass group with 24 males and 6 females aged 51.8±3.8 years). The effectiveness and safety between the two groups were compared.ResultsThe surgical success rate was 100.0% in both groups. And there was no death within postoperative 30 days and during the follow-up. There was no endoleak immediately postoperatively and during 1-year follow-up in the two groups. The operation time and hospitalization expenses in the fenestration group was less or shorter than those in the bypass group (P<0.05). The reduction in blood pressure of the left upper limb in the fenestration group was greater than that in the bypass group (P<0.05). There was no symptom of left upper limb ischemia, dizziness or hoarseness in both groups.ConclusionThe two methods of reconstruction of the left subclavian artery are safe and effective. In vitro fenestration can reduce surgical trauma and costs, and bypass surgery can provide better forward blood flow for the left subclavian artery.
ObjectiveTo explore the clinical efficacy of percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) and interlaminar fenestration discectomy in the treatment of lumbar (L) 5-Sacral (S) 1 lumbar disc herniation (LDH).MethodsLDH patients were retrospectively included from January 2016 to Januray 2018. And the patients were divided into the PEID group and the fenestration group according to their choice of different surgical methods. The operation time, intra-operative blood loss, and bed rest time in the two groups were recorded. The preoperative and postoperative [1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and last follow-up (>12 months)] Visual Analogue Score (VAS) of the lumbago and leg pain between the two groups were compared; the preoperative and postoperative [1 week, and last follow-up (>12 months)] Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and also the postoperative [(>12 months)] therapeutic effect (modified MacNab) between the two groups were compared.ResultsA total of 66 patients were included, with 31 in the PEID group and 35 in the fenestration group. There was no significant difference in age, gender and course of disease between the two groups (P>0.05). There were leakage of cerebrospinal fluid and transient lumbago, leg pain and numbness, which were worse than those before operation in the PEID group (1 and 1 patient, respectively) and the fenestration group (2 and 3 patients, respectively). There were statistically significant differences between the PEID group and the fenestration group, in the operative time [(90.65±9.98) vs. (66.23±16.50) minutes], intra-operative blood loss [(51.77±18.64) vs. (184.29±78.38) mL], and bed time [(2.87±0.92) vs. (7.49±1.20) d] (t=−7.365, t’=−9.697, t=−17.374, P<0.001). There was no significant difference in the preoperative VAS score (lumbar-leg pain) and ODI index, and the ODI index at each postoperative time point, between the two groups (P>0.05). VAS score (lumbago) and VAS score (leg pain) in the PEID group at each postoperative time point were lower than those in the fenestration group (P<0.05); VAS scores (leg pain) at other time points were not statistically significant between the two groups (P > 0.05). VAS (lumbar-leg pain) score and ODI index at each postoperative time point were lower than those before the surgery. The was no statistically significant difference in the PEID group (90.32%) and fenestration group (85.71%) in the excellent rate (χ2=0.328, P=0.713).ConclusionsPEID has less surgical trauma, less bleeding, short bed rest, fast recovery, and better relief of postoperative lumbago symptoms. It is worthy of further promotion in clinical work.
ObjectiveTo investigate the effect of in vitro fenestration on reconstruction of left subclavian artery in endovascular treatment of aortic dissection.MethodsA total of 89 patients with aortic dissection involving left subclavian artery were treated by endovascular treatment in the Second Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University from February 2017 to January 2020. There were 44 patients in the test group, including 36 males and 8 females, with an average age of 58.02±13.58 years. There were 45 patients in the control group, including 35 males and 10 females, with an average age of 54.10±12.32 years. The left subclavian artery was reconstructed by in vitro fenestration in the test group and by chimney technique in the control group. The clinical data were compared between the two groups.ResultsThe operation time of the test group was longer than that of the control group (126.16±7.53 min vs. 96.49±6.52 min, P<0.01). The median follow-up time was 31 (13-48) months. The incidence of endoleak in the test group (4.7%) was lower than that in the control group (18.6%, P=0.04) during the follow-up. There was no statistical difference in the incidence of stroke, myocardial infarction, false lumen thrombosis, retrograde aortic dissection or left subclavian artery occlusion between the two groups (P>0.05).Conclusion In vitro fenestration for reconstructing left subclavian artery in thoracic endovascular aortic repair of aortic dissection is safe and feasible, which is worthy of further clinical promotion.
To assess long-term outcomes of reoperation for recurrent lumbar disc herniation, and to compare results of different methods. Methods There were 95 patients who had reoperation for recurrent lumbar discherniation between February 1998 to February 2003, among whom a total of 89 (93.7%) were followed up and their primary data were reviewed. There were 76 patients, with the mean age of 42 years (range from 23 to 61), who met the inclusion criteria and were included. Among them, there were 55 males and 21 females. All patients had the history of more than one sciatic nervepain. The mean recurrent time was 69 months(range from 8 to 130 months). There were 48 patients in L4,5 and 28 patients in L5, S1, of whom we chose 30 to undergo larger vertebral plate discectomy (or two-side fenestration) and nucleus pulpose discectomy (group A), 24 to undergo the whole vertebral discectomy (group B) and 22 to undergo the whole vertebral discectomy and 360degrees intervertebral fusion(group C). The patients’ cl inical results in the three groups were compared, and the cl inical curative effects were evaluated by using cl inical functional assessment standard. Results Cl inical outcomes were excellent or good in 80.3% of the patients, including 80.0% of group A, 79.2% of group B and 81.8% of group C. There was no significant difference in each group (P gt; 0.05). These three groups were not different in age, pain-free interval and follow-up duration (P gt; 0.05). The mean intraoperative blood losses in the three groups were (110.7 ± 98.8), (278.7 ± 256.3), (350.7 ± 206.1) mL, respectively. The mean surgery time were (65.9 ± 22.8), (111.6 ± 24.3), (127.3 ± 26.7) minutes, respectively, and the mean hospital ization time were (6.7 ± 1.4), (10.2 ± 1.8), (12.2 ± 2.3) days, respectively. Group A was significantly less than group B or C (P lt; 0.05) and there was no significant difference between group B and C. All the patients were followed up for 36 to 96 months with an average of 86 months, and with (87.6 ± 27.0), (84.5 ± 19.8), (83.6 ± 13.5) months of group A, B and C, respectively. At the endof the follow-up, there were more cases of spinal instabil ity at the same level in group B (19 patients) than in group A (1 patient) or group C (no patient) in X-ray, and the difference was significant (P lt; 0.05). Conclusion Reoperation for recurrent lumbar disc herniation is effective. Larger vertebral plate discectomy or tow-side fenestration is recommended for managing recurrent lumbar disc herniation.
Objective To summarize the advantages and key points of external fenestration in the treatment of aortic dissection involved visceral branch arteries after endovascular aortic repair (EVAR), and to explore the application effect of external fenestration in aortic dissection involved visceral branch arteries. Methods A patient with abdominal aortic aneurysm resulting in abdominal aortic dissection and involving multiple visceral arteries after EVAR was treated in Center of Vascular and Interventional Surgery, Department of General Surgery, The Third People’s Hospital of Chengdu. The surgical procedure of this patient was summarized, and the current status of total lumen technique in the treatment of such diseases was discussed and analyzed. Results The operation was successful, and it took only five hours, the intraoperative blood loss was about 100 mL, the patient was kept in ICU for one day and discharged one week after surgery and no serious postoperative complications occurred (such as spinal cord ischemia, liver and kidney insufficiency, infection, lower limb ischemia, puncture pseudoaneurysm, etc.). Aortic CT angiography was reexamined in three months after surgery, and the three-dimensional reconstruction showed that the aortic stent was stable, the blood flow of visceral branch arteries was smooth, and the aortic dissection was well isolated. Conclusion Endovascular repair of aortic dissection involving branch arteries of important organs can be achieved by external fenestration technique, it is a new treatment for aortic lesions involved visceral branch arteries.
ObjectiveTo report our clinical experience and outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for acute Stanford type A dissection using ascending aorta replacement combined with implantation of a fenestrated stent-graft of the entire aortic arch through a minimally invasive technique. MethodsFrom 2016 to 2020 in our hospital, 24 patients (17 males and 7 females, aged 45-72 years) with complicated Stanford type A aortic dissection, underwent replacement of the proximal ascending aorta with TEVAR. None of the patients with dissection involved the three branches of the superior arch, and all patients were replaced with artificial blood vessels of the ascending aorta under non-hypothermic cardiopulmonary bypass, preserving the arch and the three branches above the arch, and individualized stent graft fenestration. ResultsSurgical technical success rate was 100.0%. There was no intraoperative complication or evidence of endo-leak in 1 month postoperatively. Hospital stay was 10±5 d. During postoperative follow-up, the stent was unobstructed without displacement, the preserved branch of the aortic arch was unobstructed, and the true lumen of the descending aorta was enlarged. Conclusion This hybrid technique by using TEVAR with fenestrated treatment is a minimally invasive and effective method to treat high-risk patients with acute Stanford type A aortic dissection.
Objective To investigate the safety and effectiveness of the operation of integrate subparagraph, fenestration, exclusion, cut expansion, seton, tube, and drainage (ISFECSTD) to cure complex anal fistula. Methods Using randomized comparison and multicenter parallel experiment, the total number was 240: 120 patients in study group treated by ISFECSTD, and 120 patients in control group treated by extended cutting and seton operation. Then compared the safety and effectiveness between two groups. Results The clinical recovery rate of the study group was significantly higher than that in the control group （Plt;0.05）. The operation time and wound healing time in study group were significantly less than those in control group, and the scar area after wound healing was smaller than that in control group （Plt;0.01）. The decreased extents of anorectal pressures and rectal capacity feeling function after operation in study group were smaller than those in control group (Plt;0.01). Rectal and anal reflex function and healing of the endostoma, stem, and branch in study group were better than those in control group (Plt;0.05, Plt;0.01). Incidence of anal incontinence after operation in study group was significantly less than that in of anus-rectum structure and function, and has the merits of higher cure rate, shorter time of healing, smaller scar, less pain, etc. The method of ISFECSTD is worth being a new standardized operation in the clinical application.
ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the effectiveness and safety of fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (F-EVAR) and chimney endovascular aortic repair (Ch-EVAR) in treatment of juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (JRAAA).MethodsThe databases including the PubMed, Cochrane Library, CNKI, etc. were searched to collect the randomized controlled trails (RCTs) and non-RCTs about the F-EVAR versus Ch-EVAR for the JRAAA. The retrieval time was from inception to November 2019. The studies were screened according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the data were extracted and the quality was evaluated by 2 reviewers independently. Then the meta-analysis was conducted using the RevMan 5.1 software.ResultsA total of 9 non-RCTs involving 536 patients were included, 315 of whom were in the F-EVAR group, 221 of whom were in the Ch-EVARF group. The results of meta-analysis showed that: Compared with the F-EVAR group, the Ch-EVAR group had a higher incidence of type Ⅰ endoleak [OR=0.31, 95%CI (0.12, 0.85), P=0.02] and a lower incidence of target organ injury [OR=2.96, 95%CI (1.30, 6.72), P=0.010]. But there were no differences in the technical success rate, vascular restenosis, re-intervention rate, and 30 d mortality between the 2 groups (P>0.05).ConclusionsBoth F-EVAR and Ch-EVAR are safe and effective treatments for JRAAA. F-EVAR has a relative low incidence of type Ⅰ endoleak, but a relatively high incidence of target organ damage. However, for the limitation of quantity and quality of the included studies, this conclusion still requires to be further proved by performing large scale and high quality RCTs. It suggests that doctors should choose a best therapy for patients with JRAAA according to an integrative disease assessment.