Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Heart Surg Forum ; 24(6): E1027-E1032, 2021 Dec 14.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34962469

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Although the prevalence of coronary artery anomalies (CAA) is due to accidental and rare discoveries, it varies between different countries or geographies. CAA are rare congenital disorders having various clinical definitions. Its prevalence varies in angiographic and autopsy series in adult populations and is approximately 1% in average. While the incidence ranges from 0.2% to 5.64% in coronary angiographic (CAG) studies, it is around 0.3% in autopsy series. We aimed to estimate the frequency of CAA in our patient population. METHODS: The coronary angiographic data of 4099 consecutive adult patients, who underwent CAG between January 2019 and December 2020, were analyzed and retrospectively studied. RESULTS: The mean age of the total patients who underwent CAG was 61.59 ± 13.67 years (range, 18-98 years). CAA were found in 76 patients (1.85% incidence), origin and course anomaly in 62 patients (81.6%), and coronary artery termination anomaly in 14 patients (18.4%). Separate exits of the left anterior descending (LAD) and left circumflex (LCX) coronary artery from the left sinus of Valsalva (LSV) were the most common anomalies (36.84%). Coronary artery fistulas were seen in 14 (18.42%) patients. Abnormal origin of left circumflex artery (LCX) from the right coronary artery (RCA) or right sinus valsalva (RSV) was seen in 13 (17.11%) patients. Outflow anomalies from the contralateral coronary sinus were detected in 10 (13.16%) patients. CONCLUSION: The incidence and pattern of CAA in our patient population showed similarity with previous studies. Physicians should be aware of CAA that may be associated with potentially serious cardiac incidents, because recognition of these CAA is important for the decision of treatment procedures.


Assuntos
Anomalias dos Vasos Coronários/epidemiologia , Densidade Demográfica , Adolescente , Adulto , Distribuição por Idade , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Angiografia Coronária , Anomalias dos Vasos Coronários/classificação , Anomalias dos Vasos Coronários/diagnóstico por imagem , Chipre/epidemiologia , Feminino , Humanos , Incidência , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Prevalência , Estudos Retrospectivos , Adulto Jovem
2.
J Med Cases ; 12(5): 213-215, 2021 May.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34434460

RESUMO

Advanced diagnostic systems and screening services for health care have made it possible to improve the detection of congenital cardio-vascular abnormalities, including coronary artery variations. Many coronary artery fistulas are congenital, and this can also be reported in patients with normal heart anatomy. In this report, we present a patient with a fistula between left anterior descending artery and pulmonary artery which was diagnosed incidentally with conventional angiography.

3.
J Craniofac Surg ; 29(3): 792-795, 2018 May.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29419586

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To compare whether there are any differences between the 3 methods used for measure area of foramen magnum (FM) in skulls. METHODS: The FMs of 150 skulls were examined. Antero-posterior diameter, transverse diameter were measured using by Vernier caliper. The area of the FM was calculated by using 2 different formulas as described previously by Radinsky and Teixeira.The authors also applied stereological assessment method for estimating the surface area of FMs. The area was calculated 3 times manually using stereological point grid system for each skull.The authors compared the mean surface area of FMs obtained from each of these 3 methods estimating surface area of FMs whether there were any significant differences in between their results. RESULTS: The mean areas of the FMs estimated according to Teixeria formula, Radinsky formula, and Cavalieri stereological method were respectively as follows: 790.47 ±â€Š99.86 mm, 783.66 ±â€Š99.34 mm, and 748.06 ±â€Š100.19 mm. The authors observed significant differences (P < 0.05) in between the mean surface areas of FMs obtained from each of these 3 methods used for estimating the area. CONCLUSION: There were significant differences (P < 0.05) in between the mean surface areas of FMs obtained from each of these 3 methods used for estimating the area.


Assuntos
Cefalometria/métodos , Forame Magno/anatomia & histologia , Cefalometria/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...