Annals of vascular surgery · 2017
Flow-diverting Stent in the Treatment of Cervical Carotid Dissection and Pseudoaneurysm: Review of Literature and Case Report.
Клинический случайСтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Baptista-Sincos Anna Paula Weinhardt, Simplício Aline Bigatão, Sincos Igor Rafael, Leaderman Alex, Neto Fernando Saliture, Moraes Adjaldes, Aun Ricardo
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The endovascular technique has been recommended over the past few years to extracranial carotid dissection and pseudoaneurysm with promising results, especially after medical therapy failure. Flow-diverting stents are an alternative for complex cases. These stents have proven to be effective treatment devices for intracranial aneurysms.
METHODS: The reference list of Pham's systematic review, published in 2011, and Seward's literature review, published in 2015, was considered, as well as all new articles with eligible features. Search was conducted on specific databases: MEDLINE and Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde.
RESULTS: For carotid dissection and pseudoaneurysm, our review yielded 3 published articles including 12 patients. The technical success rate of flow-diverting stent was 100% with no procedural complication described. Mean clinical follow-up was 27.2 months (range 5-48), and in 5 months' angiographic follow-up, all lesions had healed. No new neurological events were reported during the clinical follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: Flow diverter stent use on intracranial and peripheral vascular surgery demonstrates satisfactory initial results, but it is still under investigation. There are very few cases treated till now and the initial results with flow-diverting stents to cervical carotid dissection are promising. In well-selected cases, where simple embolization or conventional stent is not appropriate, this technic may be considered.
METHODS: The reference list of Pham's systematic review, published in 2011, and Seward's literature review, published in 2015, was considered, as well as all new articles with eligible features. Search was conducted on specific databases: MEDLINE and Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde.
RESULTS: For carotid dissection and pseudoaneurysm, our review yielded 3 published articles including 12 patients. The technical success rate of flow-diverting stent was 100% with no procedural complication described. Mean clinical follow-up was 27.2 months (range 5-48), and in 5 months' angiographic follow-up, all lesions had healed. No new neurological events were reported during the clinical follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: Flow diverter stent use on intracranial and peripheral vascular surgery demonstrates satisfactory initial results, but it is still under investigation. There are very few cases treated till now and the initial results with flow-diverting stents to cervical carotid dissection are promising. In well-selected cases, where simple embolization or conventional stent is not appropriate, this technic may be considered.