...
首页> 外文期刊>HSR Proceedings in Intensive Care & Cardiovascular Anesthesia >Vascular connector devices increase the availability of minimally invasive cardiac surgery to ischemic heart patients
【24h】

Vascular connector devices increase the availability of minimally invasive cardiac surgery to ischemic heart patients

机译:血管连接器设备增加了缺血性心脏病患者微创心脏手术的可用性

获取原文

摘要

In what is believed to be the first Soviet contribution to American medical literature, Pavel Androsov described the first vascular anastomotic device in 1956. After World War II, Androsov favored the use of his device over vascular ligation, citing reasons that would be still valid in our current day [1]. Four years later, the first human coronary artery bypass (CAB) procedure took place, reported by Robert Goetz at Albert Einstein University. Interestingly, this first attempt (Right internal mammary artery to right coronary artery) was done using a tantalum ring anastomotic device with circumferential sutures. In Leningrad in 1964, Vasilii Kolesov performed the first hand-sewn clinical CAB, citing Goetz’ work as a predecessor [2]. Three years later, he performed the first, and for a long time the only, coronary anastomosis using a vascular stapler, and three years later, the patient remained free of symptoms [3].Many anastomotic devices were designed and produced in the 1960’s, but the advent of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and its wide adoption made hand suturing on a motionless heart a more convenient option to surgeons. Vascular connector devices eventually faded away from the interest of surgeons, and hence manufacturers, and for a long time, the well established CAB technique remained – efficient but technically stagnant. In the 1990’s, against the background of significant morbidities associated with the use of CPB and myocardial ischemic arrest, interest in off-pump CAB surgery (OP-CAB) was reawakened. This revival of interest re-established the same circumstances that brought interest to vascular connectors 40 years earlier. Not much later, the development of minimally invasive cardiac surgery - CAB (MICS-CAB) and totally endoscopic CAB (TECAB) made the hand suturing technique even more challenging and excessively time consuming, making connector devices, once again, an attractive option. Although graft failure is probably multi-factorial, technical error still shares a good deal in this failure. Anastomotic connector devices decrease the error in hitting a moving target (OPCAB), as well as facilitate graft anastomoses in a restricted space (MICS-CAB). Other non-technical advantages are displayed as well. Eliminating the need for an aortic cross clamp has been achieved in OPCAB, but the proximal anastomoses still mandated a partial clamp application. This has been reported to consistently increase rates of stroke after CAB surgeries [4,5,6,7]. Connector devices allow performing proximal anastomoses with minimal aortic manipulation, and thus improve neurological outcomes. Also, the supposedly reduced time needed to complete an anastomosis using a connector device would allow for less hemodynamic instability, when grafting posterior vessels off-pump, as well as allow for a shorter clamp time when using CPB and ischemic arrest, and thus would be associated with less morbidity and mortality [8,9]. More than 60 connector devices have been designed and produced by several manufacturers for coronary bypass surgery alone, and due to different outcomes and economic reasons, only a few of them came to fruition [10,11]. A perfect connector device should display a number of geometric, physiological, technical and outcome characteristics, in a cost effective context.These characteristics would ensure patency rates that are at least, and adverse event rates that are at most, equal to standard hand suturing technique. An understanding of how this can be, invites an understanding of how failure happens. Altering flow dynamics and disrupting endothelial continuity may lead to thrombosis, intimal hyperplasia or both. The blood exposed non-intimal surface (BENIS), whether it be the media, adventitia or foreign material (suture, metal, etc) has been directly correlated to thrombosis [11]. This is the reason why two distal connector devices are no longer available; the Graft Connector of Jomed (Jomed Inernational
机译:帕维尔·安德罗索夫(Pavel Androsov)在被认为是苏联对美国医学文献的第一篇贡献中,于1956年描述了第一台血管吻合器。第二次世界大战后,安德罗索夫(Androsov)赞成使用他的装置而不是血管结扎术,理由是仍然有效我们今天的日子[1]。四年后,阿尔伯特·爱因斯坦大学(Albert Einstein University)的罗伯特·格茨(Robert Goetz)报道了首次人类冠状动脉搭桥术(CAB)。有趣的是,这种首次尝试(从右乳内动脉到右冠状动脉)是使用带有环形缝线的钽环吻合装置完成的。 1964年,瓦西里·科列索夫(Vasilii Kolesov)在列宁格勒进行了首次手工缝制的临床CAB,并引用了戈茨(Goetz)的工作[2]。三年后,他使用血管吻合器进行了第一次也是很长一段时间的唯一一次冠状动脉吻合术,三年后,患者仍然没有症状[3]。许多吻合器械是在1960年代设计和生产的,但是,体外循环(CPB)的出现及其广泛采用,使手固定在不动的心脏上的缝合成为外科医生更方便的选择。最终,血管连接器设备逐渐失去了外科医生和制造商的兴趣,很长一段时间以来,完善的CAB技术一直保持着–有效但技术停滞的状态。在1990年代,在与使用CPB和心肌缺血性停搏相关的重大疾病的背景下,人们开始对非体外循环CAB手术(OP-CAB)产生了兴趣。这种兴趣的复兴重新建立了与40年前引起血管连接器兴趣的情况相同的情况。不久之后,微创心脏外科手术-CAB(MICS-CAB)和完全内窥镜CAB(TECAB)的发展使手缝合技术变得更具挑战性且非常耗时,这使得连接器设备再次成为有吸引力的选择。尽管移植失败可能是多因素的,但技术错误在这一失败中仍占很大比例。吻合连接器设备减少了击中移动目标(OPCAB)的错误,并有助于在受限空间(MICS-CAB)中进行移植物吻合。还显示了其他非技术优势。 OPCAB消除了对主动脉夹钳的需求,但是近端吻合仍然要求局部夹钳。据报道,这在CAB手术后持续增加中风发生率[4,5,6,7]。连接器设备允许以最少的主动脉操作来进行近端吻合,从而改善神经功能。同样,使用连接器设备完成吻合术所需的时间可能会减少,这将减少后泵移植后血管的血流动力学不稳定性,并且在使用CPB和缺血性停搏时可缩短钳夹时间,因此与较低的发病率和死亡率相关[8,9]。多家制造商仅针对冠状动脉搭桥手术就设计和生产了60多个连接器设备,由于结果和经济原因的不同,只有其中的几个实现了[10,11]。完美的连接器设备应在具有成本效益的情况下显示出许多几何,生理,技术和结局特性,这些特性将确保通畅率至少等于,不良事件发生率最多等于标准手缝合技术。对这种情况的理解可以引起对故障发生方式的理解。改变血流动力学和破坏内皮的连续性可能导致血栓形成,内膜增生或两者。血液暴露的非内膜表面(BENIS),无论是介质,外膜还是异物(缝合线,金属等)都与血栓形成直接相关[11]。这就是两个远端连接器设备不再可用的原因。 Jomed的嫁接连接器(Jomed Inernational

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

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