首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Annals of Vascular Diseases >Early and Mid-Term Results of Endovascular Aortic Repair Using a Crossed-Limb Technique for Patients with Severely Splayed Iliac Angulation
【2h】

Early and Mid-Term Results of Endovascular Aortic Repair Using a Crossed-Limb Technique for Patients with Severely Splayed Iliac Angulation

机译:严重张开的I角患者使用交叉肢技术进行血管内主动脉修复的早期和中期结果

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

>Objective: We evaluated early and mid-term results of endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) using crossed-limb and non-crossed-limb techniques.>Material and Methods: From December 2011 to October 2013, 37 patients (31 men; mean age 75.4 years) were treated with EVAR (crossed-limb, 21 and non-crossed-limb, 16). We compared technical success, maximum short-axis diameter of abdominal aortic aneurysm, iliac angulation, time for catheterization of the short contralateral limb gate of the main body (SCT), and complications between the groups.>Results: The mean follow-up period was 810±230 days. The technical success rate was 100%. There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of mean short-axis diameter. Iliac angulation was significantly wider in the crossed-limb group (53.3±14.6 vs. 39.4±13.0, p=0.0049). There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of SCT. Limb occlusion occurred in two cases (one crossed-limb and one non-crossed-limb). There were no aneurysm-related deaths.>Conclusion: There were no differences between the crossed-limb and non-crossed-limb techniques in terms of early and mid-term results of EVAR. A crossed-limb technique can be performed safely without prolonged SCT even in severely splayed iliac angulation cases.
机译:>目的:我们使用跨肢和非跨肢技术评估了血管内主动脉修复(EVAR)的早期和中期结果。>材料与方法:从2011年12月开始截至2013年10月,对37例患者(31名男性;平均年龄75.4岁)进行了EVAR治疗(交叉肢21例,非交叉肢16例)。我们比较了技术的成功率,腹主动脉瘤的最大短轴直径,骨的成角度,对侧短肢对侧肢体门(SCT)的导管插入时间以及两组之间的并发症。>结果:平均随访时间为810±230天。技术成功率为100%。就平均短轴直径而言,两组之间没有显着差异。 the肢组的lia角明显更宽(53.3±14.6 vs. 39.4±13.0,p = 0.0049)。两组之间在SCT方面无显着差异。四例发生肢体闭塞(一例为跨肢,另一例为非跨肢)。没有与动脉瘤相关的死亡。>结论:就EVAR的早期和中期结果而言,跨肢技术和非跨肢技术之间没有差异。即使在严重骨成角的情况下,跨肢技术也可以安全地执行而无需延长SCT。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号