Journal of vascular surgery
-
Case Reports
Fishbone penetration of the thoracic esophagus with prolonged asymptomatic impaction within the aorta.
A 54-year-old man with fishbone penetration of the thoracic esophagus and mediastinal hematoma was successfully managed with conservative treatment. Six-month follow-up computed tomography (CT) revealed migration of the fishbone into the aorta; however, the patient was asymptomatic and refused surgery. Six years later, CT showed persistent impaction of the fishbone within the aorta, but the patient was healthy. To our knowledge, this is the first reported case of serial CT documentation of fishbone penetration of the esophagus with migration into and prolonged asymptomatic impaction within the aorta.
-
The number of endovascular procedures performed is increasing exponentially as technology improves. A serious complication of endovascular therapy is loss of a foreign body in the vasculature. We reviewed our experience and evaluated the cause, management, and outcomes of intravascular foreign body (IVFB) misplacement. ⋯ Intravascular foreign bodies are a serious complication of endovascular therapy that can be minimized with proper device selection and deployment. When an intravascular foreign body is identified, endovascular retrieval should be attempted due to its high success rate and minimal morbidity.
-
First rib resection and scalenectomy (FRRS) has been shown to improve short-term quality of life (QOL) in the treatment of neurogenic thoracic outlet syndrome (NTOS). Long-term benefits are not well studied but are believed to decrease over time. Our objective was to evaluate long-term NTOS outcomes using validated QOL instruments. ⋯ The QOL after FRRS shows no significant difference with longer follow-up. Clinical assessment reflects patient-reported outcomes and can gauge postoperative improvement. Patient factors, particularly comorbidities and opioid use, are more predictive of long-term QOL than is preoperative scalene block and should also be considered when selecting patients for surgical intervention.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study Comparative Study
Differential outcomes of carotid stenting and endarterectomy performed exclusively by vascular surgeons in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST).
Outcomes in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST) did not differ between carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for the composite primary end point of stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), or death during the periprocedural period or ipsilateral stroke within 4 years. Rigorous credentialing and training of interventionists, including vascular surgeons, were required for the randomization phase of CREST. Because the lead-in phase of CREST had suggested higher perioperative risks after CAS performed by vascular surgeons, the purpose of this analysis was to examine differences in outcomes after randomization between CAS and CEA performed by vascular surgeons. ⋯ When performed by surgeons, CAS and CEA have similar net outcomes, although the periprocedural risks vary (lower stroke with CEA and lower MI with CAS). These data suggest that appropriately trained vascular surgeons may safely offer both CEA and CAS for the prevention of stroke. The remarkably low stroke and death rates after CEA performed by vascular surgeons in CREST, particularly among symptomatic patients, represent the best outcomes ever reported after carotid interventions from a randomized controlled trial. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT0000473.