Objective To summarize the advantages and key points of external fenestration in the treatment of aortic dissection involved visceral branch arteries after endovascular aortic repair (EVAR), and to explore the application effect of external fenestration in aortic dissection involved visceral branch arteries. Methods A patient with abdominal aortic aneurysm resulting in abdominal aortic dissection and involving multiple visceral arteries after EVAR was treated in Center of Vascular and Interventional Surgery, Department of General Surgery, The Third People’s Hospital of Chengdu. The surgical procedure of this patient was summarized, and the current status of total lumen technique in the treatment of such diseases was discussed and analyzed. Results The operation was successful, and it took only five hours, the intraoperative blood loss was about 100 mL, the patient was kept in ICU for one day and discharged one week after surgery and no serious postoperative complications occurred (such as spinal cord ischemia, liver and kidney insufficiency, infection, lower limb ischemia, puncture pseudoaneurysm, etc.). Aortic CT angiography was reexamined in three months after surgery, and the three-dimensional reconstruction showed that the aortic stent was stable, the blood flow of visceral branch arteries was smooth, and the aortic dissection was well isolated. Conclusion Endovascular repair of aortic dissection involving branch arteries of important organs can be achieved by external fenestration technique, it is a new treatment for aortic lesions involved visceral branch arteries.
ObjectiveTo report a simple and safe method for in situ fenestration of left subclavian artery in thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR).MethodsTwenty-eight patients received in situ fenestration of left subclavian artery in TEVAR from June 2018 to May 2019 in our center, including 23 males and 5 females at an average age of 57.7±9.6 years. Among them, 12 patients used adjustable sheath or guiding catheter (a group A) and 16 patients used "J. D"technique (a group B). The clinical efficacy of the two groups was compared.ResultsIn the group A, 1 patient failed to receive fenestration and was transferred to the chimney technique. In the group B, 1 patient due to the traction system shift during operation, was completed by traditional adjustable sheath puncture. The group B had shorter alignment-perforation time and trigger time and less complications. There was no significant difference in endoleak during short-term follow-up between the two groups.ConclusionThe "J. D" technique is simple, safe and easy to obtain materials. It effectively reduces the risk caused by difficult sheath alignment during the in situ fenestration of the left subclavian artery. Although the results of recent follow-up are not significantly different from traditional methods, it still needs to accumulate the cases to observe the possible risks and difficulties.
目的 探讨腹腔镜下输卵管妊娠开窗取胚术后缝合与否对输卵管再通、宫内妊娠率的近期影响。方法 回顾分析2008年4月－2010年4月112例有保留生育功能意愿且具备随访条件的输卵管妊娠患者行腹腔镜手术的临床资料。根据手术方法将患者分为两组：A组54例，行患侧输卵管开窗取胚术，术后缝合输卵管；B组58例，行患侧输卵管开窗取胚术，术后不予缝合输卵管。两组术毕均予甲氨喋呤20 mg注射于病变输卵管处系膜，并行通液了解患侧输卵管通畅情况（对侧输卵管均通畅）。3个月后比较两组患侧输卵管的再通情况，并随访其近期（12个月内）宫内妊娠率、重复性异位妊娠率情况。 结果 A组54例患者术中患侧输卵管通畅48例，通而不畅6例；术后3个月B型超声监测下通液43例通畅，10例通而不畅，1例不通，通畅率79.63%。B组58例患者术中患侧输卵管通畅54例，4例通而不畅；术后3个月B型超声监测下通液37例通畅，13例通而不畅，8例不通，通畅率63.79%。近期（12个月内）宫内妊娠率、重复性异位妊娠率情况：A组54例，实访42例，宫内妊娠29例，占69.05%；重复性异位妊娠6例，占14.29%。B组58例，实访44例，宫内妊娠18例，占40.91%，重复性异位妊娠12例，占27.27%。A组术后患侧输卵管通畅率、宫内妊娠率高于B组，而重复性异位妊娠率明显降低，两组差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。 结论 腹腔镜下输卵管妊娠开窗取胚术后行输卵管缝合，可以减少对患侧输卵管损伤并恢复其正常的解剖结构，从而有效地保留患者生育功能。术后患侧输卵管通畅率、宫内妊娠率明显高于术后不缝合者，而重复性异位妊娠率明显降低。
ObjectiveTo investigate the clinical effect of in situ fenestration combined with chimney technique in the treatment of aortic dissection involving left common carotid artery.MethodsFrom January 2012 to June 2019, 53 patients with aortic dissection involving left common carotid artery were selected. There were 21 patients in the test group, including 14 males and 7 females, with an average age of 57.2±11.2 years; there were 32 patients in the control group, including 20 males and 12 females, with an average age of 56.7±12.1 years. In the test group, the left subclavian branch was reconstructed by in situ fenestration and the left common carotid artery was reconstructed by chimney technique. In the control group, the left common carotid artery was reconstructed by hybrid operation. The clinical data of the patients were compared.ResultsThe operation time of the test group was significantly longer than that of the control group (151.8±35.2 min vs. 101.3±29.6 min, P=0.00). The patients in the two groups were followed up for 6-20 months. There was no significant difference in the incidence of pulmonary infection, stroke, steal blood syndrome, false lumen thrombosis or internal leakage between the two groups (P>0.05). The diameters of the distal and proximal ends of the true cavity in the test group increased significantly compared with those in the control group (P<0.05).ConclusionIn situ fenestration combined with chimney technique is an effective method for the treatment of aortic dissection involving left common carotid artery, which is worthy of further clinical promotion.
The authors analysed the medical records of 30 patients with congenital cystic disease of the liver treated in this hospital and with a review of the article some problems of diagnosis and treatment are discussed. B-altrasonic scaner (B-US), computerized tomographic scanning and magnetic resonance imaging appeared to be most helpful in diagnosing and treating this disease. After comparing different treatments, such as aspiration .alcohol sclerotherapy, fenetration, cyst resection and partial hepatectomy, the arthors state the best results could be achieved by alcohol sclerotherapy under B-US guidence (6 cases) or fenestration (15 cases) with no postoperative complication. Malignant change was found in one patient of this group.
ObjectiveTo investigate the effect of in vitro fenestration on reconstruction of left subclavian artery in endovascular treatment of aortic dissection.MethodsA total of 89 patients with aortic dissection involving left subclavian artery were treated by endovascular treatment in the Second Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University from February 2017 to January 2020. There were 44 patients in the test group, including 36 males and 8 females, with an average age of 58.02±13.58 years. There were 45 patients in the control group, including 35 males and 10 females, with an average age of 54.10±12.32 years. The left subclavian artery was reconstructed by in vitro fenestration in the test group and by chimney technique in the control group. The clinical data were compared between the two groups.ResultsThe operation time of the test group was longer than that of the control group (126.16±7.53 min vs. 96.49±6.52 min, P<0.01). The median follow-up time was 31 (13-48) months. The incidence of endoleak in the test group (4.7%) was lower than that in the control group (18.6%, P=0.04) during the follow-up. There was no statistical difference in the incidence of stroke, myocardial infarction, false lumen thrombosis, retrograde aortic dissection or left subclavian artery occlusion between the two groups (P>0.05).Conclusion In vitro fenestration for reconstructing left subclavian artery in thoracic endovascular aortic repair of aortic dissection is safe and feasible, which is worthy of further clinical promotion.
To assess long-term outcomes of reoperation for recurrent lumbar disc herniation, and to compare results of different methods. Methods There were 95 patients who had reoperation for recurrent lumbar discherniation between February 1998 to February 2003, among whom a total of 89 (93.7%) were followed up and their primary data were reviewed. There were 76 patients, with the mean age of 42 years (range from 23 to 61), who met the inclusion criteria and were included. Among them, there were 55 males and 21 females. All patients had the history of more than one sciatic nervepain. The mean recurrent time was 69 months(range from 8 to 130 months). There were 48 patients in L4,5 and 28 patients in L5, S1, of whom we chose 30 to undergo larger vertebral plate discectomy (or two-side fenestration) and nucleus pulpose discectomy (group A), 24 to undergo the whole vertebral discectomy (group B) and 22 to undergo the whole vertebral discectomy and 360degrees intervertebral fusion(group C). The patients’ cl inical results in the three groups were compared, and the cl inical curative effects were evaluated by using cl inical functional assessment standard. Results Cl inical outcomes were excellent or good in 80.3% of the patients, including 80.0% of group A, 79.2% of group B and 81.8% of group C. There was no significant difference in each group (P gt; 0.05). These three groups were not different in age, pain-free interval and follow-up duration (P gt; 0.05). The mean intraoperative blood losses in the three groups were (110.7 ± 98.8), (278.7 ± 256.3), (350.7 ± 206.1) mL, respectively. The mean surgery time were (65.9 ± 22.8), (111.6 ± 24.3), (127.3 ± 26.7) minutes, respectively, and the mean hospital ization time were (6.7 ± 1.4), (10.2 ± 1.8), (12.2 ± 2.3) days, respectively. Group A was significantly less than group B or C (P lt; 0.05) and there was no significant difference between group B and C. All the patients were followed up for 36 to 96 months with an average of 86 months, and with (87.6 ± 27.0), (84.5 ± 19.8), (83.6 ± 13.5) months of group A, B and C, respectively. At the endof the follow-up, there were more cases of spinal instabil ity at the same level in group B (19 patients) than in group A (1 patient) or group C (no patient) in X-ray, and the difference was significant (P lt; 0.05). Conclusion Reoperation for recurrent lumbar disc herniation is effective. Larger vertebral plate discectomy or tow-side fenestration is recommended for managing recurrent lumbar disc herniation.
ObjectiveTo explore the clinical efficacy of percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) and interlaminar fenestration discectomy in the treatment of lumbar (L) 5-Sacral (S) 1 lumbar disc herniation (LDH).MethodsLDH patients were retrospectively included from January 2016 to Januray 2018. And the patients were divided into the PEID group and the fenestration group according to their choice of different surgical methods. The operation time, intra-operative blood loss, and bed rest time in the two groups were recorded. The preoperative and postoperative [1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and last follow-up (>12 months)] Visual Analogue Score (VAS) of the lumbago and leg pain between the two groups were compared; the preoperative and postoperative [1 week, and last follow-up (>12 months)] Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and also the postoperative [(>12 months)] therapeutic effect (modified MacNab) between the two groups were compared.ResultsA total of 66 patients were included, with 31 in the PEID group and 35 in the fenestration group. There was no significant difference in age, gender and course of disease between the two groups (P>0.05). There were leakage of cerebrospinal fluid and transient lumbago, leg pain and numbness, which were worse than those before operation in the PEID group (1 and 1 patient, respectively) and the fenestration group (2 and 3 patients, respectively). There were statistically significant differences between the PEID group and the fenestration group, in the operative time [(90.65±9.98) vs. (66.23±16.50) minutes], intra-operative blood loss [(51.77±18.64) vs. (184.29±78.38) mL], and bed time [(2.87±0.92) vs. (7.49±1.20) d] (t=−7.365, t’=−9.697, t=−17.374, P<0.001). There was no significant difference in the preoperative VAS score (lumbar-leg pain) and ODI index, and the ODI index at each postoperative time point, between the two groups (P>0.05). VAS score (lumbago) and VAS score (leg pain) in the PEID group at each postoperative time point were lower than those in the fenestration group (P<0.05); VAS scores (leg pain) at other time points were not statistically significant between the two groups (P > 0.05). VAS (lumbar-leg pain) score and ODI index at each postoperative time point were lower than those before the surgery. The was no statistically significant difference in the PEID group (90.32%) and fenestration group (85.71%) in the excellent rate (χ2=0.328, P=0.713).ConclusionsPEID has less surgical trauma, less bleeding, short bed rest, fast recovery, and better relief of postoperative lumbago symptoms. It is worthy of further promotion in clinical work.