Endovascular and open repair for blunt aortic injury, treated in one clinical institution in Brazil: a case series

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Sincos, Igor Rafael
Data de Publicação: 2011
Outros Autores: Aun, Ricardo, Belczak, Sergio Quilici, Nascimento, Luciano Dias, Mioto Netto, Boulanger, Casella, Ivan, Silva, Erasmo Simao da, Puech-Leão, Pedro
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Clinics
Texto Completo: https://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/19302
Resumo: OBJECTIVE: The objective of this retrospective study is to analyze and compare the results of conventional surgical repair and endovascular treatment of blunt aortic injury over the past 8 years. METHODS: Twenty-eight patients (25 male; mean age, 35 years) were treated for blunt aortic injury between April 2001 and March 2009 in a university hospital in Brazil. Twenty-six patients were included in the study: five were treated with operative repair (OR) and 21 with endovascular treatment (TEVAR). Two patients were excluded from analysis: one was managed conservatively, and one was treated with endovascular treatment for chronic dissection related to aortic trauma. RESULTS: Mean age was lower in the OR group than in the endovascular treatment group (17.8 vs. 38 years, P = .003). There was one death in the OR group and four deaths in the endovascular treatment group. Mean follow-up for the overall group was 33.6 months, with 48.7 months (range 8-83 months) for the OR group, and 29.8 months (range 2-91 months) for the TEVAR group. Mean time elapsed from injury to repair was 23.4 hours (range 8-48 h, median 20 h) for the OR group and 30.3 hours (range 2-240 h, median 18 h) for the TEVAR group (P = .374). The duration of surgery was shorter in the endovascular treatment group (142 versus 237 minutes; P = .005). There were no significant differences with respect to the number of postoperative days requiring mechanical ventilation, duration of ICU stay or duration of hospital stay. CONCLUSION: In this retrospective analysis, endovascular treatment was a safe method for repair of blunt aortic trauma, with immediate and midterm results that were comparable to those results obtained with operative repair. No complications from the stent graft were identified during follow-up. Nevertheless, long-term follow-up is necessary to confirm the effectiveness of this treatment.
id USP-19_a31857a917306fcde41d325c11c93e1b
oai_identifier_str oai:revistas.usp.br:article/19302
network_acronym_str USP-19
network_name_str Clinics
repository_id_str
spelling Endovascular and open repair for blunt aortic injury, treated in one clinical institution in Brazil: a case series Aortic injuryEndovascular treatmentMidterm resultsSurgical techniqueTrauma OBJECTIVE: The objective of this retrospective study is to analyze and compare the results of conventional surgical repair and endovascular treatment of blunt aortic injury over the past 8 years. METHODS: Twenty-eight patients (25 male; mean age, 35 years) were treated for blunt aortic injury between April 2001 and March 2009 in a university hospital in Brazil. Twenty-six patients were included in the study: five were treated with operative repair (OR) and 21 with endovascular treatment (TEVAR). Two patients were excluded from analysis: one was managed conservatively, and one was treated with endovascular treatment for chronic dissection related to aortic trauma. RESULTS: Mean age was lower in the OR group than in the endovascular treatment group (17.8 vs. 38 years, P = .003). There was one death in the OR group and four deaths in the endovascular treatment group. Mean follow-up for the overall group was 33.6 months, with 48.7 months (range 8-83 months) for the OR group, and 29.8 months (range 2-91 months) for the TEVAR group. Mean time elapsed from injury to repair was 23.4 hours (range 8-48 h, median 20 h) for the OR group and 30.3 hours (range 2-240 h, median 18 h) for the TEVAR group (P = .374). The duration of surgery was shorter in the endovascular treatment group (142 versus 237 minutes; P = .005). There were no significant differences with respect to the number of postoperative days requiring mechanical ventilation, duration of ICU stay or duration of hospital stay. CONCLUSION: In this retrospective analysis, endovascular treatment was a safe method for repair of blunt aortic trauma, with immediate and midterm results that were comparable to those results obtained with operative repair. No complications from the stent graft were identified during follow-up. Nevertheless, long-term follow-up is necessary to confirm the effectiveness of this treatment. Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo2011-01-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/1930210.1590/S1807-59322011000200015Clinics; Vol. 66 No. 2 (2011); 267-274 Clinics; v. 66 n. 2 (2011); 267-274 Clinics; Vol. 66 Núm. 2 (2011); 267-274 1980-53221807-5932reponame:Clinicsinstname:Universidade de São Paulo (USP)instacron:USPenghttps://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/19302/21365Sincos, Igor RafaelAun, RicardoBelczak, Sergio QuiliciNascimento, Luciano DiasMioto Netto, BoulangerCasella, IvanSilva, Erasmo Simao daPuech-Leão, Pedroinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2012-05-23T16:33:00Zoai:revistas.usp.br:article/19302Revistahttps://www.revistas.usp.br/clinicsPUBhttps://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/oai||clinics@hc.fm.usp.br1980-53221807-5932opendoar:2012-05-23T16:33Clinics - Universidade de São Paulo (USP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Endovascular and open repair for blunt aortic injury, treated in one clinical institution in Brazil: a case series
title Endovascular and open repair for blunt aortic injury, treated in one clinical institution in Brazil: a case series
spellingShingle Endovascular and open repair for blunt aortic injury, treated in one clinical institution in Brazil: a case series
Sincos, Igor Rafael
Aortic injury
Endovascular treatment
Midterm results
Surgical technique
Trauma
title_short Endovascular and open repair for blunt aortic injury, treated in one clinical institution in Brazil: a case series
title_full Endovascular and open repair for blunt aortic injury, treated in one clinical institution in Brazil: a case series
title_fullStr Endovascular and open repair for blunt aortic injury, treated in one clinical institution in Brazil: a case series
title_full_unstemmed Endovascular and open repair for blunt aortic injury, treated in one clinical institution in Brazil: a case series
title_sort Endovascular and open repair for blunt aortic injury, treated in one clinical institution in Brazil: a case series
author Sincos, Igor Rafael
author_facet Sincos, Igor Rafael
Aun, Ricardo
Belczak, Sergio Quilici
Nascimento, Luciano Dias
Mioto Netto, Boulanger
Casella, Ivan
Silva, Erasmo Simao da
Puech-Leão, Pedro
author_role author
author2 Aun, Ricardo
Belczak, Sergio Quilici
Nascimento, Luciano Dias
Mioto Netto, Boulanger
Casella, Ivan
Silva, Erasmo Simao da
Puech-Leão, Pedro
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Sincos, Igor Rafael
Aun, Ricardo
Belczak, Sergio Quilici
Nascimento, Luciano Dias
Mioto Netto, Boulanger
Casella, Ivan
Silva, Erasmo Simao da
Puech-Leão, Pedro
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Aortic injury
Endovascular treatment
Midterm results
Surgical technique
Trauma
topic Aortic injury
Endovascular treatment
Midterm results
Surgical technique
Trauma
description OBJECTIVE: The objective of this retrospective study is to analyze and compare the results of conventional surgical repair and endovascular treatment of blunt aortic injury over the past 8 years. METHODS: Twenty-eight patients (25 male; mean age, 35 years) were treated for blunt aortic injury between April 2001 and March 2009 in a university hospital in Brazil. Twenty-six patients were included in the study: five were treated with operative repair (OR) and 21 with endovascular treatment (TEVAR). Two patients were excluded from analysis: one was managed conservatively, and one was treated with endovascular treatment for chronic dissection related to aortic trauma. RESULTS: Mean age was lower in the OR group than in the endovascular treatment group (17.8 vs. 38 years, P = .003). There was one death in the OR group and four deaths in the endovascular treatment group. Mean follow-up for the overall group was 33.6 months, with 48.7 months (range 8-83 months) for the OR group, and 29.8 months (range 2-91 months) for the TEVAR group. Mean time elapsed from injury to repair was 23.4 hours (range 8-48 h, median 20 h) for the OR group and 30.3 hours (range 2-240 h, median 18 h) for the TEVAR group (P = .374). The duration of surgery was shorter in the endovascular treatment group (142 versus 237 minutes; P = .005). There were no significant differences with respect to the number of postoperative days requiring mechanical ventilation, duration of ICU stay or duration of hospital stay. CONCLUSION: In this retrospective analysis, endovascular treatment was a safe method for repair of blunt aortic trauma, with immediate and midterm results that were comparable to those results obtained with operative repair. No complications from the stent graft were identified during follow-up. Nevertheless, long-term follow-up is necessary to confirm the effectiveness of this treatment.
publishDate 2011
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2011-01-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/19302
10.1590/S1807-59322011000200015
url https://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/19302
identifier_str_mv 10.1590/S1807-59322011000200015
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/19302/21365
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Clinics; Vol. 66 No. 2 (2011); 267-274
Clinics; v. 66 n. 2 (2011); 267-274
Clinics; Vol. 66 Núm. 2 (2011); 267-274
1980-5322
1807-5932
reponame:Clinics
instname:Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
instacron:USP
instname_str Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
instacron_str USP
institution USP
reponame_str Clinics
collection Clinics
repository.name.fl_str_mv Clinics - Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||clinics@hc.fm.usp.br
_version_ 1800222756380344320