File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Regarding: "Patching versus primary closure for carotid endarterectomy"

TitleRegarding: "Patching versus primary closure for carotid endarterectomy"
Authors
Issue Date2006
PublisherMosby, Inc. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jvs
Citation
Journal Of Vascular Surgery, 2006, v. 43 n. 4, p. 868 How to Cite?
AbstractWe read the article by Rockman et al with great interest, but do not support the conclusions that primary closure during carotid endarterectomy should be abandoned in favor of either eversion endarterectomy or endarterectomy with patch angioplasty. The primary closure group comprised only 11.8% of the study group. This suggests that this particular technique may have been practiced by surgeons performing fewer carotid endarterectomies than their peers. There is some evidence to support a volume-outcome relationship for carotid endarterectomy. It would be interesting to know if those surgeons performing primary closure had a smaller workload than those using patch closure and eversion endarterectomy. No mention is given regarding the use of quality control to determine the technical success of carotid endarterectomy. The use of completion imaging has coincided with an improvement in outcome in many centers, although cause-and-effect is very difficult to prove. During the last 14 years, we have performed 675 consecutive carotid endarterectomies. The primary patch rate was 9.4% based upon small diameter vessels and technical problems with the distal endarterectomy site. A further 3.7% of patients had secondary patching based upon the findings of completion duplex scanning performed after primary closure of the artery but before closure of the wound. The stroke and death rate for the primary closure group was 13 (2.2%) of 586, and that of the patched group was 2 (2.2%) of 89. This stroke and death rate is exactly the same as the best results reported by Rockman et al using eversion endarterectomy and patch closure. The Cochrane review strongly supports the use of patching; however, there are some drawbacks to obligatory use of patch angioplasty. Patch closure does not necessarily abolish technical error. Carotid patching is also not without risks. Not only is it associated with a longer cross-clamp time than primary closure, but vein patch may be susceptible to central rupture or the development of false aneurysms, and prosthetic patches carries a risk of graft sepsis. There is a danger in publishing papers such as Rockman’s that they will be used as evidence in a court of law against a poor outcome using primary closure. Our data indicate that primary closure with selective patching is a safe technique when used in conjunction with quality control in the form of duplex completion imaging. We would strongly recommend completion imaging rather than a particular technique when performing carotid endarterectomy.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/148734
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 3.454
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 2.115
ISI Accession Number ID
References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorChan, YCen_HK
dc.contributor.authorPadayachee, TSen_HK
dc.contributor.authorTaylor, PRen_HK
dc.date.accessioned2012-05-30T03:54:15Z-
dc.date.available2012-05-30T03:54:15Z-
dc.date.issued2006en_HK
dc.identifier.citationJournal Of Vascular Surgery, 2006, v. 43 n. 4, p. 868en_HK
dc.identifier.issn0741-5214en_HK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/148734-
dc.description.abstractWe read the article by Rockman et al with great interest, but do not support the conclusions that primary closure during carotid endarterectomy should be abandoned in favor of either eversion endarterectomy or endarterectomy with patch angioplasty. The primary closure group comprised only 11.8% of the study group. This suggests that this particular technique may have been practiced by surgeons performing fewer carotid endarterectomies than their peers. There is some evidence to support a volume-outcome relationship for carotid endarterectomy. It would be interesting to know if those surgeons performing primary closure had a smaller workload than those using patch closure and eversion endarterectomy. No mention is given regarding the use of quality control to determine the technical success of carotid endarterectomy. The use of completion imaging has coincided with an improvement in outcome in many centers, although cause-and-effect is very difficult to prove. During the last 14 years, we have performed 675 consecutive carotid endarterectomies. The primary patch rate was 9.4% based upon small diameter vessels and technical problems with the distal endarterectomy site. A further 3.7% of patients had secondary patching based upon the findings of completion duplex scanning performed after primary closure of the artery but before closure of the wound. The stroke and death rate for the primary closure group was 13 (2.2%) of 586, and that of the patched group was 2 (2.2%) of 89. This stroke and death rate is exactly the same as the best results reported by Rockman et al using eversion endarterectomy and patch closure. The Cochrane review strongly supports the use of patching; however, there are some drawbacks to obligatory use of patch angioplasty. Patch closure does not necessarily abolish technical error. Carotid patching is also not without risks. Not only is it associated with a longer cross-clamp time than primary closure, but vein patch may be susceptible to central rupture or the development of false aneurysms, and prosthetic patches carries a risk of graft sepsis. There is a danger in publishing papers such as Rockman’s that they will be used as evidence in a court of law against a poor outcome using primary closure. Our data indicate that primary closure with selective patching is a safe technique when used in conjunction with quality control in the form of duplex completion imaging. We would strongly recommend completion imaging rather than a particular technique when performing carotid endarterectomy.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherMosby, Inc. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jvsen_HK
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Vascular Surgeryen_HK
dc.rightsNOTICE: this is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Journal of Vascular Surgery. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Journal of Vascular Surgery, [VOL 43, ISSUE 4, 2006] DOI 10.1016/j.jvs.2005.12.048-
dc.titleRegarding: "Patching versus primary closure for carotid endarterectomy"en_HK
dc.typeArticleen_HK
dc.identifier.emailChan, YC: ycchan88@hkucc.hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.authorityChan, YC=rp00530en_HK
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jvs.2005.12.048en_HK
dc.identifier.pmid16616256-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-33645761407en_HK
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-33645761407&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_HK
dc.identifier.volume43en_HK
dc.identifier.issue4en_HK
dc.identifier.spage868en_HK
dc.identifier.epage868en_HK
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000236714100044-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Statesen_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridChan, YC=27170769400en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridPadayachee, TS=7003866842en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridTaylor, PR=35103559200en_HK

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats