A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Contemporary outcomes after distal vertebral reconstruction. | LitMetric

Contemporary outcomes after distal vertebral reconstruction.

J Vasc Surg

Section of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Michigan Cardiovascular Center, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5867, USA.

Published: July 2013

Introduction: Flow-limiting lesions or embolic phenomena can produce vertebrobasilar ischemia. This study aims to differentiate the pathophysiology of vertebral ischemia and examine contemporary outcomes after distal vertebral reconstruction.

Methods: Between February 2005 and November 2011, 41 consecutive distal vertebral artery (VA) reconstructions were performed in 34 patients, including bypass to the third portion of the VA (V3) at the C1-2 level (n = 24) or the C0-1 level (n = 7); transposition of the external carotid artery or its occipital branch onto V3 (n = 6); transposition of V3 onto the internal carotid artery (n = 3); and bypass from the ipsilateral subclavian artery to V3 (n = 1). Six patients required a concomitant carotid intervention, and nine patients required a partial resection of the C1 transverse process. Symptoms, present in 91% of patients, were attributed to a flow-limiting lesion in 16 (52%), to embolization in nine (29%), and to a mixed etiology in six (19%).

Results: Intraoperatively, five patients required graft revision or conversion of a transposition to a bypass, and two patients required vertebral ligation. Median blood loss was 260 mL. Median hospital length of stay was 1 day. Postoperatively, one patient (2%) required re-exploration for bleeding, a stroke occurred in one patient (2%), and cranial nerve injury occurred in three patients (7%). There were no perioperative deaths. Survival analysis showed that primary patency at 1, 2, and 5 years, respectively, was 74%, 74%, and 54%. Secondary patency was 80% at 1 year and remained so through the end of follow-up at 80 months. A statistically significant difference in patency was noted favoring arterial transposition over vertebral bypass of 100%, 100%, and 83% at 1, 2, and 5 years, respectively, vs 65%, 65%, and 39% (P = .018). Considering successful redo bypass grafting for late failure, 97% of patients demonstrated preserved patency at their last follow-up. There were two late deaths of unknown etiology and no late strokes.

Conclusions: Distal VA reconstruction for flow-limiting or embolic lesions provides excellent stroke protection and symptomatic relief with acceptable perioperative risk in selected patients.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2012.12.067DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

patients required
16
distal vertebral
12
patients
9
contemporary outcomes
8
outcomes distal
8
carotid artery
8
vertebral
6
bypass
5
required
5
distal
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!