INTRODUCTION: This is a retrospective case series analysis to compare the incidence of cranial nerve injuries in carotid endarterectomy by the retrojugular and anteromedial approaches. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were extracted from a prospectively collected database. Ninety-one retrojugular carotid endarterectomies were compared with 145 anteromedial carotid endarterectomies. All were performed under local anaesthesia and used the eversion technique. Data were analysed using the chi-squared test. RESULTS: Nine (3.8%) cases were complicated by cranial nerve injuries. In four cases, multiple nerves were involved. In total, 13 (5.5%) cranial nerves were injured. The affected nerves were: two (0.8%) marginal mandibular, two (0.8%) laryngeal, three (1.2%) accessory and six (2.5%) hypoglossal. There was no statistically significant difference in total or specific cranial nerve injuries between the two surgical approaches. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of cranial nerve injuries was similar following either the retrojugular or anteromedial approach. Accessory nerve injuries were only seen in the retrojugular approach but this did not reach statistical significance.
INTRODUCTION: This is a retrospective case series analysis to compare the incidence of cranial nerve injuries in carotid endarterectomy by the retrojugular and anteromedial approaches. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were extracted from a prospectively collected database. Ninety-one retrojugular carotid endarterectomies were compared with 145 anteromedial carotid endarterectomies. All were performed under local anaesthesia and used the eversion technique. Data were analysed using the chi-squared test. RESULTS: Nine (3.8%) cases were complicated by cranial nerve injuries. In four cases, multiple nerves were involved. In total, 13 (5.5%) cranial nerves were injured. The affected nerves were: two (0.8%) marginal mandibular, two (0.8%) laryngeal, three (1.2%) accessory and six (2.5%) hypoglossal. There was no statistically significant difference in total or specific cranial nerve injuries between the two surgical approaches. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of cranial nerve injuries was similar following either the retrojugular or anteromedial approach. Accessory nerve injuries were only seen in the retrojugular approach but this did not reach statistical significance.