World neurosurgery · 2022
Internal Carotid Artery Constriction with or without Superficial Temporal Artery-Middle Cerebral Artery Bypass for Patients with Giant Internal Carotid Aneurysms.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Ding Maohua, Wang Xu, Zhao Haijun, Shi Minggang, Shang Yanguo, Wang Hu, Wang Xuan, Tong Xiaoguang
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The optimal management of giant internal carotid aneurysms (GICAs) is disputed owing to their low incidence. The aim of this study was to describe the use of internal carotid artery (ICA) constriction as therapeutic management of GICAs.
METHODS: This retrospective cohort study analyzed data from medical histories and follow-up of 14 patients with GICAs. Before surgery, the patients underwent balloon test occlusion and magnetic resonance perfusion evaluation. ICA constriction was considered only for patients with negative balloon test occlusion. A transverse incision of about 50% of the initial part of the ICA was done, and the free margins on both sides were sutured, causing 70%-90% stenosis. ICA constriction alone was selected (11 cases) if both anterior communicating artery and posterior communicating artery compensatory blood flow existed and magnetic resonance perfusion was ≤II1 on the affected side. If there was only 1 compensatory vessel from the anterior communicating artery and posterior communicating artery, and/or magnetic resonance perfusion was >II1, ICA constriction was combined with low-flow bypass (3 cases).
RESULTS: The mean follow-up time of the 14 patients was 43.5 months (interquartile range: 38.8-51.3 months). Of these 14 patients, 5 achieved O'Kelly-Marotta grades C and D. Clinical improvement occurred in 12 of 14 patients. No patients experienced new-onset stroke.
CONCLUSIONS: ICA constriction exhibits a perforator protective effect. This procedure could be a promising alternative to ICA ligation in patients with GICAs and negative balloon test occlusion.
METHODS: This retrospective cohort study analyzed data from medical histories and follow-up of 14 patients with GICAs. Before surgery, the patients underwent balloon test occlusion and magnetic resonance perfusion evaluation. ICA constriction was considered only for patients with negative balloon test occlusion. A transverse incision of about 50% of the initial part of the ICA was done, and the free margins on both sides were sutured, causing 70%-90% stenosis. ICA constriction alone was selected (11 cases) if both anterior communicating artery and posterior communicating artery compensatory blood flow existed and magnetic resonance perfusion was ≤II1 on the affected side. If there was only 1 compensatory vessel from the anterior communicating artery and posterior communicating artery, and/or magnetic resonance perfusion was >II1, ICA constriction was combined with low-flow bypass (3 cases).
RESULTS: The mean follow-up time of the 14 patients was 43.5 months (interquartile range: 38.8-51.3 months). Of these 14 patients, 5 achieved O'Kelly-Marotta grades C and D. Clinical improvement occurred in 12 of 14 patients. No patients experienced new-onset stroke.
CONCLUSIONS: ICA constriction exhibits a perforator protective effect. This procedure could be a promising alternative to ICA ligation in patients with GICAs and negative balloon test occlusion.