4.3 Review

The Chimney Graft, a Systematic Review

期刊

ANNALS OF VASCULAR SURGERY
卷 26, 期 7, 页码 1030-1038

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.avsg.2011.11.029

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Approximately 20% to 30% of the patients are considered not eligible for standard endovascular aneurysm repair because of aortic neck morphology. Most of these patients have an aortic neck situated in the vicinity of the aortic side branches, requiring extensive open surgery. The introduction of fenestrated and branched stent grafts has made endovascular branch preservation possible, but these procedures are time-consuming and expensive. The chimney procedure offers a readily available endovascular alternative for the treatment in patients with acute aneurysms and challenging anatomy. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the short- and long-term results of the chimney procedure. Methods: A comprehensive literature search for studies describing the chimney procedure was performed using MEDLINE and Excerpta Medica Database. All articles were critically appraised and included, based on relevance, validity, and outcome measures. Patient characteristics, details of the surgical intervention, and short- and long-term outcomes were studied. Results: A total of 75 patients were included who underwent a chimney procedure for the preservation of a total of 96 branches. Used operating techniques differed considerably between all studies, with an overall technical success rate of 98.9%. Three perioperative deaths were reported, of which one patient died from intervention-related complication. The follow-up duration ranged from 2 days to 54 months. Late complications included three deaths, none of which was device or aneurysm related. Three chimney grafts occluded during follow-up, of which two required reintervention. Conclusion: The chimney procedure appears as an acceptable alternative for patients in an emergency setting, although data regarding long-term follow-up are not yet available.

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

4.3
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