4.6 Article

Success of Minimally Invasive Pectus Excavatum Procedures (Modified Nuss) in Adult Patients (≥30 Years)

期刊

ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY
卷 102, 期 3, 页码 993-1003

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.03.105

关键词

-

资金

  1. Zimmer Biomet

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Minimally invasive repair of pectus excavatum (MIRPE) has become standard for pediatric and young adult patients, but its use for older adults is controversial. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed electronic medical records of adults (>= 18 years of age) who underwent MIRPE from January 1, 2010, through April 30, 2015, and collected demographic data, operative details, and information about outcomes. Cardiac function was measured before and after repair by intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography. We divided patients by age: 18 to 29 years of age and 30 years of age and older. Results. Of 361 patients, 207 were 30 or older (mean, 40 years; range, 30 to 72 years; 71.5% men). Of the older patients, 151 had primary repairs. MIRPE was successfully used in 88.7% of patients older than 30 years of age versus 96.5% of those 18 to 29 years of age. For patients 30 years of age and older, open-cartilage resection, sternal osteotomy, or both was more common with increasing age (mean, 47.8 years versus 39.5 years; p = 0.0003) and higher mean Haller index (7.7 versus 5.5; p = 0.0254). Mean operative time for MIRPE was significantly longer for older patients (>= 30 years of age) compared with younger adults (121 [60 to 224] minutes versus 111 [62 to 178] minutes; p = 0.0154). Right ventricular output increased 65.2% after repair in older adults. Although greater, the frequency of bar rotation requiring reoperation was not significantly increased in the older patients (p = 0.74). Conclusions. The majority of adult patients with PE can have successful repair with modified MIRPE. The use of cartilage or sternal osteotomy, or both, increased with patient age and defect severity. (C) 2016 by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons

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

4.6
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