4.5 Review

Internal carotid artery injury in endoscopic endonasal surgery: A systematic review

期刊

LARYNGOSCOPE
卷 126, 期 3, 页码 582-590

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/lary.25748

关键词

Endoscopic sinus surgery; skull base surgery; internal carotid artery injury; ICA injury; intraoperative complication; endoscopic endonasal approach

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives/HypothesisInternal carotid artery (ICA) injury during endoscopic endonasal surgery (EES) is a known and feared complication of paranasal sinus and skull base procedures. These ICA injuries can result in stroke, cranial nerve palsies, and death. This review examines the setting of injury along with the treatment approaches, and patient outcomes. Study DesignSystematic review using PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE. MethodsThe databases were searched for articles reporting cases of ICA injury during EES. Variables analyzed included patient demographics, operative approach, preoperative diagnosis, setting of injury, repair method, imaging studies, patient outcomes, and follow-up. ResultsTwenty-five articles with 50 cases were included in this review. The EES approach was used for skull base procedures in 34 cases and for inflammatory disease in 16 cases. The most commonly injured ICA segment was the cavernous (34 cases), followed by the ophthalmic (three cases). Injuries occurred more commonly on the left (1.3:1). Injury occurred in the setting of various steps during EES with instruments. Stereotactic image guidance was reported in two cases. Initial hemostasis was achieved with packing in 35 cases, endoscopic clip sacrifice in four cases, bipolar coagulation with the intent to seal defect in three cases, and bipolar coagulation with the intent to sacrifice the ICA in one case. Intraoperative or immediate postoperative angiography was reported in 27 cases. ConclusionsThe incidence of reported cases of ICA injury during EES remains low. Left-sided injuries to the cavernous segment of the ICA occurred more frequently than injuries on the right.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据