Apósitos con ácido hialurónico y carnosina en curas tópicas seriadas como tratamiento conservador ante una lesión trófica isquémica: una posible alternativa eficaz en casos seleccionados / Topical cures with dressings containing hyaluronic acid and carnosine as a conservative treatment of an ischemic trophic injury: possible effective alternative in selected cases

Las curas tópicas con apósitos que contienen ácido hialurónico y carnosina pueden convertirse en un tratamiento conservador para lesiones tróficas isquémicas, y pueden resultar una posible alternativa eficaz en casos seleccionados. Presentamos el caso clínico de un paciente citado para realizar la amputación de un dedo del pie que, tras desbridamiento quirúrgico y un procedimiento seriado de curas con Tulgrasum®, un apósito comercial con base de ácido hialurónico y carnosina, fue dado de alta (AU)

Topical cures with dressings containing hyaluronic acid and carnosine may become a conservative treatment for ischemic trophic lesions, and may be a possible alternativee ffective in selected cases. We present the clinical case of apatient summoned to perform the amputation of a toe that, after surgical debridement and a serial dressing procedure with Tulgrasum®, a commercial dressing based on hyaluronic acid and carnosine, was discharged (AU)

Could prior endovascular interventions affect the results of lower extremity below the knee autologous vein bypasses?

BACKGROUND: Performing a non-selective primary endovascular approach involves risk of performing ineffective procedures and could compromise future treatments. The objective of this research is to determine if previous failed endovascular intervention could affect bypass results. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study including 77 below the knee (BTK) bypasses with great saphenous vein (GSV) in patients with critical limb ischemia, carried out between 2008-2018. Primary bypasses (P-BP) were compared with bypasses with history of previous failed endovascular intervention (Secondary bypasses [S-BP]). Primary outcomes included: primary, primary-assisted, and secondary patency, and major amputation-free survival (AFS). The quality of GSV used was evaluated as a potential confounding factor. RESULTS: Forty-six procedures were P-BP (59.7%) and 31 S-BP (40.3%). The mean follow-up was 35.4 (SD: 31) and 28 (DS: 30) months respectively. Univariate results showed an increased risk of loss of primary patency (HR=2.7), primary-assisted patency (HR=3.1) and secondary patency (HR=3.26) in S-BP (P<0.05). This group also presented a trend towards an increased risk of major amputation (HR=1.6; P>0.05). Suboptimal GSV was used in 29% of S-BP and 15% of P-BP. This factor was identified as confounding partially, as it decreased the influence assumed by the history of prior endovascular intervention in the analyzed variables. CONCLUSIONS: Secondary bypasses show inferior results to primary bypasses in our series. Although the cause could be a prior failed endovascular intervention, the frequent use of suboptimal GSV in this type of patients may also contribute to this effect.