首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Neurologia medico-chirurgica >Comparison of Single and Dual Monitoring during Carotid Endarterectomy
【2h】

Comparison of Single and Dual Monitoring during Carotid Endarterectomy

机译:颈动脉内膜切除术期间单次和双重监测的比较

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

We compared the rate of selective shunt and pattern of monitoring change between single and dual monitoring in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA). A total of 121 patients underwent 128 consecutive CEA procedures. Excluding five procedures using internal shunts in a premeditated manner, we classified patients according to the monitoring: Group A (n = 72), patients with single somatosensory evoked potential (SSEP) monitoring; and Group B (n = 51), patients with dual SSEP and motor evoked potential (MEP). Among the 123 CEAs, an internal shunt was inserted in 12 procedures (9.8%) due to significant changes in monitoring (Group A 5.6%, Group B 15.7%, p = 0.07). The rate of shunt use was significantly higher in patients with the absence of contralateral proximal anterior cerebral artery (A1) on magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) than in patients with other types of MRA (p <0.001). Significant monitor changes were seen in 16 (12.5%) in both groups. In four of nine patients in Group B, SSEP and MEP changes were synchronized, and in the remaining five patients, a time lag was evident between SSEP and MEP changes. In conclusion, the rate of internal shunt use tended to be more frequent in patients with dual monitoring than in patients with single SSEP monitoring, but the difference was not significant. Contralateral A1 absence may predict the need for a shunt and care should be taken to monitor changes throughout the entire CEA procedure. Use of dual monitoring can capture ischemic changes due to the complementary relationship, and may reduce the rate of false-negative monitor changes during CEA.
机译:我们比较了在接受颈动脉胚胎切除术(CEA)的患者单一和双重监测之间的选择性分流和监测变化模式。共有121名患者接受了128名连续的CEA程序。不包括五个程序使用内部分流器以预厕所的方式,我们根据监测分类:A组(n = 72),单一躯体感应诱发潜力(SSEP)监测患者; B组(N = 51),双SSEP和电机诱发潜力(MEP)。在123个CES中,由于监测的显着变化(组5.6%,B组15.7%,B15.7%,B = 0.07),将内部分流在12个程序中(9.8%)。在磁共振血管造影(MRA)上没有对侧近端前脑动脉(A1)的患者患者分流用途显着高于其他类型的MRA患者(P <0.001)。两组中,16(12.5%)看到了显着的监测更改。在B组九组患者中,SSEP和MEP的变化同步,并且在剩下的五名患者中,SSEP和MEP变化之间的时间滞后是明显的。总之,在双重监测的患者中,内部分流器使用的速度比单一SSEP监测患者更频繁,但差异并不重要。对侧A1缺失可以预测对分流的需求,应注意在整个CEA程序中监测变化。使用双重监测可以通过互补关系捕获缺血变化,并且可以降低CEA期间的假阴性监测器变化的变化。

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