...
首页> 外文期刊>The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery >Single-stage versus 2-stage repair of coarctation of the aorta with ventricular septal defect.
【24h】

Single-stage versus 2-stage repair of coarctation of the aorta with ventricular septal defect.

机译:主动脉缩窄伴心室间隔缺损的单阶段修复与两阶段修复。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

OBJECTIVE: The results of single-stage and 2-stage repair of coarctation of the aorta with ventricular septal defect have improved, but the optimal treatment strategy remains controversial. This study compares our results with these 2 approaches. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 46 patients, 23 with single-stage repair and 23 with 2-stage repair, who underwent completed surgical treatment of coarctation of the aorta with a ventricular septal defect at the Children's Hospital of Michigan between March 1994 and June 2006. RESULTS: The average number of operations in the single-stage group was 1.5 +/- 0.6, and in the 2-stage group it was 2.2 +/- 0.4 (P < or = .0001). Postoperative complications were similar, except for the number of planned reoperations to perform delayed sternal closure in the single-stage operation (n = 7) compared with the 2-stage operation (n = 1, P = .023). The patient age in the single-stage group at the time of discharge (completed repair time) was a median of 39.0days (range, 19-250 days) compared with a median of 113.0 days (range, 26-1614 days) in the 2-stage group after stage 2 (P < or = .0001). Freedom from cardiac reintervention was 89.8% in the single-stage group versus 84.9% in the 2-stage group (P = .33). The hospital mortality was 4.4% (1 patient) in each group. The actuarial survival rate was 95.7% in the single-stage group versus 90.6% in the 2-stage group (P = .38). CONCLUSIONS: The advantages of single-stage over 2-stage repair of a ventricular septal defect with coarctation of the aorta include an earlier age at completion of repair, fewer operations, and fewer incisions. Postoperative complications and hospital mortality are similar. The one disadvantage of a single-stage repair was the increased need for delayed sternal closure compared with the 2-stage approach.
机译:目的:单期和两期修复主动脉缩窄伴室间隔缺损的结果有所改善,但最佳治疗策略仍存在争议。本研究将我们的结果与这两种方法进行了比较。方法:我们回顾性分析了1994年3月至2004年3月在密歇根州儿童医院接受手术治疗的46例患者,其中23例为单阶段修复,23例为2阶段修复。 2006年6月。结果:单阶段组的平均手术次数为1.5 +/- 0.6,而两阶段组的平均手术次数为2.2 +/- 0.4(P <或= .0001)。术后并发症类似,除了计划的手术次数相比于两阶段手术(n = 1,P = .023),单阶段手术(n = 7)进行延迟胸骨闭合术的次数。出院时(完成修复时间)的单阶段患者年龄中位数为39.0天(19-250天),而出院时为113.0天(26-1614天)。第二阶段之后的两阶段小组(P <或= .0001)。单阶段组无心脏再干预的发生率为89.8%,而两阶段组为84.9%(P = 0.33)。每组的医院死亡率为4.4%(1例患者)。单阶段组的精算生存率为95.7%,而两阶段组为90.6%(P = 0.38)。结论:室间隔缺损单期修复优于主动脉缩窄的2期修复的优点包括修复完成的年龄较早,手术较少和切口较少。术后并发症和医院死亡率相似。单阶段修复的一个缺点是与两阶段修复方法相比,延迟胸骨闭合的需求增加。

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