Katalog Plus
Bibliothek der Frankfurt UAS
Bald neuer Katalog: sichern Sie sich schon vorab Ihre persönlichen Merklisten im Nutzerkonto: Anleitung.
Dieses Ergebnis aus BASE kann Gästen nicht angezeigt werden.  Login für vollen Zugriff.

Partial Eversion Carotid Endarterectomy versus Conventional Techniques for Significant Carotid Stenosis

Title: Partial Eversion Carotid Endarterectomy versus Conventional Techniques for Significant Carotid Stenosis
Authors: Mazzaccaro, Daniela; Righini, Paolo Carlo; giannetta, matteo; Modafferi, Alfredo; Malacrida, Giovanni; Nano, Giovanni
Publisher Information: Zenodo
Publication Year: 2024
Collection: Zenodo
Description: Mazzaccaro D, Righini P, Giannetta M, Modafferi A, Malacrida G, Nano G. Partial Eversion Carotid Endarterectomy versus Conventional Techniques for Significant Carotid Stenosis. Ann Vasc Surg. 2023 Jul;93:252-260. doi:10.1016/j.avsg.2023.01.041. Epub 2023 Feb 2. PMID: 36739080. Abstract Background: To compare the outcomes of patients who were submitted to partial carotid endarterectomy (P-CEA) to those of patients who underwent standard conventional CEA with patch closure (C-CEA) and eversion CEA (E-CEA) for a significant carotid stenosis. Methods: Data of patients who consecutively underwent CEA from January 2014 to December 2018 for a significant carotid stenosis were retrospectively collected. Primary outcomes included mortality and the occurrence of neurologic and cardiologic complications, both at 30 days and during follow-up. Secondary outcomes included the occurrence of perioperative local complications (i.e. cranial nerve injuries, hematomas) and restenosis during follow-up. P values < 0.5 were considered statistically significant. Results: Three-hundred twenty-seven patients (241 males, 74%) underwent CEA for carotid stenosis (28.6% symptomatic). P-CEA was performed in 202 patients (61.8%), while C-CEA and E-CEA were performed in 103 and 22 cases respectively. At 30 days, neurologic complications were not significantly different among the 3 groups (2.8% in the group of C-CEA, 2.4% after P-CEA and 0% in E-CEA patients, P = 0.81), neither during follow-up. Perioperative local complications also were not significantly different among the 3 groups (P = 0.16). Conclusions: P-CEA had similar outcomes if compared to C-CEA and to E-CEA in terms of perioperative mortality, occurrence of neurologic and cardiologic complications, and occurrence of local complications. Also, in the long-term, P-CEA, C-CEA, and E-CEA were burdened by similar rates of mortality, neurologic, and cardiologic complications and restenosis.
Document Type: dataset
Language: English
Relation: https://zenodo.org/communities/irccspoliclinicosandonato/; https://zenodo.org/records/10550229; oai:zenodo.org:10550229; https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10550229
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.10550229
Availability: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10550229; https://zenodo.org/records/10550229
Rights: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International ; cc-by-4.0 ; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode
Accession Number: edsbas.859F9FDF
Database: BASE