Chinese medical journal · 2011
Management with the insufficient proximal landing zone for endovascular repair in aortic dissection.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ma Hao, Yang Hong-Yu, Zou Jun-Jie, Zhang Xi-Wei
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Sufficient length of the proximal landing zone (PLZ) is the key for a successful thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) of an aortic lesion. The aim of this research was to investigate the safety, feasibility, efficacy, and problems of endovascular repair for aortic dissection with insufficient PLZ.
METHODS: The clinical data between August 2005 and February 2010 from patients with insufficient PLZ for endovascular repair of aortic dissection were retrospectively reviewed. According to the classification proposed by Ishimaru, aortic zone 0 was involved in 3 cases, zone 1 in 10 cases, and zone 2 in 11 cases. A hybrid surgical procedure of supraortic debranching and revascularization, directly coverage the orifice of left subclavian artery, or a left common carotid artery chimney graft technique were performed to obtain an adequate proximal aortic landing zone.
RESULTS: There was no significant difference in risk factors and diameter of the PLZ between Zone 0, Zone 1, and Zone 2. But the length of the PLZ was significantly different in the three groups (P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in technical and clinical success rate between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The procedure for extending an insufficient PLZ for endovascular repair for aortic arch pathology is feasible and relatively safe. The applicability of TEVAR in such aortic disorders may be expanded.
METHODS: The clinical data between August 2005 and February 2010 from patients with insufficient PLZ for endovascular repair of aortic dissection were retrospectively reviewed. According to the classification proposed by Ishimaru, aortic zone 0 was involved in 3 cases, zone 1 in 10 cases, and zone 2 in 11 cases. A hybrid surgical procedure of supraortic debranching and revascularization, directly coverage the orifice of left subclavian artery, or a left common carotid artery chimney graft technique were performed to obtain an adequate proximal aortic landing zone.
RESULTS: There was no significant difference in risk factors and diameter of the PLZ between Zone 0, Zone 1, and Zone 2. But the length of the PLZ was significantly different in the three groups (P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in technical and clinical success rate between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The procedure for extending an insufficient PLZ for endovascular repair for aortic arch pathology is feasible and relatively safe. The applicability of TEVAR in such aortic disorders may be expanded.