Radiation exposure in an endovascular aortic aneurysm repair program after introduction of a hybrid operating theater.

BACKGROUND: A hybrid operating theater (HOT) enables optimal image quality, improved ergonomics, and excellent sterility for complex endovascular and hybrid procedures. We hypothesize that the commissioning of a new HOT involves a learning curve. It is unclear how steep the learning curve of these advanced HOTs is. The main purpose of this research was to evaluate radiation exposure parameters in a new HOT for a team of vascular surgeons experienced with infrarenal endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) procedures in a conventional operating room with a mobile C-arm. In addition, a comparison of the dose-area product (DAP) achieved in this study and in the literature was made. METHODS: Before commissioning of the HOT, four vascular surgeons completed a comprehensive HOT training program. From the commissioning of the HOT, clinical and procedural data for all consecutive acute and elective patients treated with EVAR were retrospectively collected for a period of 18 months (January 2016-June 2017). A literature review was conducted of the dose-area product in EVAR procedures performed with a dedicated fixed system or mobile C-arm to analyze how this study performed compared with the literature. RESULTS: In the 18-month study period, 77 patients were treated with EVAR (59 electively and 18 acutely), from whom the data were obtained. There was no significant change in radiation exposure parameters over time. From the commissioning of the HOT, EVAR procedures were performed with radiation exposure parameters similar to those of studies found in experienced vascular centers using fixed systems. CONCLUSIONS: Concerning radiation exposure parameters, the commissioning of a new HOT was not accompanied by a learning curve. Radiation exposure parameters achieved in this study were similar to those of studies from experienced and dedicated vascular centers.

Wound swab and wound biopsy yield similar culture results.

The question remains whether wound swabs yield similar culture results to the traditional gold standard, biopsies. Swabs are not invasive and easy to perform. However, they are believed to capture microorganisms from the surface rather than microorganisms that have invaded tissue. Several studies compared swabs and biopsies using different populations and sampling methods, complicating the ability to draw conclusions for clinical practice. This study aimed to compare swab and biopsy in clinical practice, by including a variety of wounds and using standard sampling and culture procedures. Swabs (Levine technique) and biopsies were taken for microbiological culture in a standardized manner from the same location of one wound for each patient. Statistical analyses were performed to determine overall agreement, and observed agreement and kappa for specific microorganisms. A variety of wounds of 180 patients from different healthcare facilities in The Netherlands were included. Skin flora was more frequently cultured from swabs, resulting in similar recovery rates when excluding skin flora (1.34 vs 1.35). Swabs were able to identify all microorganisms cultured from biopsies in 131 wounds (72.8%) wounds. Most frequently identified organisms were Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and beta-haemolytic streptococci species. Observed agreement and kappa for these organisms varied between 87.2 and 97.8% and 0.73 and 0.85, respectively. This study demonstrates that swabs and biopsies tend to yield the same culture results when taken from the same location. For frequently occurring microorganisms, agreement between the two methods was even higher. Therefore, there seems to be no direct need for invasive biopsy in clinical practice.

Chronic mesenteric ischemia: when and how to intervene on patients with celiac/SMA stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Studies that compared open surgical mesenteric artery repair (OSMAR) with percutaneous mesenteric artery stenting (PMAS) in patients with chronic mesenteric ischemia (CMI) are based on merely older studies in which only a minority of patients received PMAS. This does not reflect the current PMAS-first choice treatment paradigm. This article focused on the present opinions and changes in outcomes of OSMAR for CMI in the era of preferred use of PMAS. METHODS: Patients who received OSMAR for CMI from 1997 until 2014 in a tertiary referral centre for chronic mesenteric ischemia were included in this report. Patients were divided into two groups, the historical OSMAR preferred group and present PMAS preferred group. RESULTS: Patient characteristics, SVS comorbidity severity score, clinical presentation and number of diseased mesenteric arteries were not significantly changed after the widespread introduction of PMAS. In the present PMAS first era there were trends of less open surgical mesenteric artery multivessel repair, less antegrade situated bypasses, decreased clinical success but improved survival after OSMAR. CONCLUSIONS: Elective OSMAR should only be used in patients with substantial physiologic reserve and who have unfavourable mesenteric lesions, failed PMAS or multiple recurrences of in-stent stenosis/occlusion. PMAS in CMI patients is evolved from "bridge to surgery" to nowadays first choice treatment and "bridge to repeated PMAS" in almost all patients with CMI.

[Endarterectomy more favourable than stenting in symptomatic significant carotid stenosis: higher risk of ischaemic stroke or death following stenting]. / Endarteriëctomie gunstiger dan stent bij symptomatische carotisstenose: hoger risico op CVA of overlijden na stentplaatsing.

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has proven its value in the treatment of patients with recent significant carotid artery stenosis. Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty with carotid artery stenting ('stenting' in short) is an alternative to CEA. The results of stenting and CEA in patients with symptomatic significant carotid artery stenosis were evaluated in 9 prospective randomized controlled trials and 11 meta-analyses. Almost all of these trials failed to show superiority of stenting to CEA. According to the 4 largest and most recent studies in this field the risk of a stroke or death within 30 days after the intervention is considerably higher following stenting than following CEA. In the long run the results of stenting and CEA seem to be comparable. CEA remains the gold standard in treatment of significant carotid artery stenosis, in particular in patients older than 70.

Open or percutaneous revascularization for chronic splanchnic syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of chronic splanchnic syndrome remains controversial. In the past 10 years, endovascular repair (ER) has replaced open repair (OR) to some extent. This evidence summary reviews the available evidence for ER or OR of chronic splanchnic syndrome. METHODS: A systematic literature search of MEDLINE database was performed to identify all studies that evaluated treatment of chronic splanchnic syndrome between 1988 and 2009. RESULTS: The best available evidence consists of prospectively accumulated but retrospectively analyzed data with a high risk for confounding. Only a few of these studies incorporated functional tests to assess splanchnic ischemia before or after treatment. ER has the advantage of low short-term morbidity but the disadvantage of decreased long-term primary patency compared with OR. ER and OR have similar rates of secondary patency, although the reintervention rate after ER is higher. CONCLUSION: ER appears to be preferential in the treatment of elderly patients and in patients with comorbidity, severe cachexia, or hostile abdomen. Long-term results after OR are excellent. OR can still be proposed as the preferred option for relatively young and fit patients.