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

Usefulness of Abdominal Duplex Ultrasound for Detecting Endoleaks after Endovascular Aneurysm Repair. | LitMetric

AI Article Synopsis

  • A study evaluated the effectiveness of abdominal duplex ultrasound (DUS) in detecting endoleaks after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) in 286 patients, with 241 receiving follow-up DUS. !* -
  • Endoleaks were found in 31% of patients, divided into enlarged and nonenlarged sac groups, with significant differences in aneurysm size and endoleak characteristics between the two groups. !* -
  • Measurements of endoleak velocity and width are crucial for determining the need for reintervention, with specific cutoff values identified as 83.4 cm/s for velocity and 4.0 mm for width. !*

Article Abstract

The usefulness of abdominal duplex ultrasound (DUS) for the detection of endoleaks after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) was evaluated. Among 286 patients who underwent EVAR between September 2007 and July 2017, 241 patients were followed up using abdominal DUS. Endoleaks were detected in 74 patients (31%), who were divided into enlarged and nonenlarged sac groups. Endoleak velocities and widths were measured using abdominal DUS every 6 months after EVAR and were compared between the 2 groups. The aneurysm diameter in the nonenlarged sac group was 54.4±8.7 mm in the final follow-up. None of the patients in the nonenlarged sac group were subjected to reintervention, whereas all patients in the enlarged sac group were subjected to reintervention. The aneurysm diameter in the enlarged sac group was 62.8±8.8 mm at the time of reintervention, and the maximum endoleak flow velocities and endoleak widths were significantly higher in the enlarged sac group than in the nonenlarged sac group (p<0.05). The cutoff values on receiver operating characteristics curves for endoleak velocity and width were 83.4 cm/s and 4.0 mm, respectively. Follow-ups using abdominal DUS are useful after EVAR. Endoleak velocity and width measurements are important, and reintervention may be needed when these measurements exceed their cutoff values.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6434359PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.3400/avd.oa.18-00108DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

sac group
24
nonenlarged sac
16
enlarged sac
12
abdominal duplex
8
duplex ultrasound
8
endoleaks endovascular
8
endovascular aneurysm
8
aneurysm repair
8
abdominal dus
8
aneurysm diameter
8

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!