| Literature DB >> 25140196 |
Markus Udo Wagenhäuser1, Tolga Atilla Sagban1, Mareike Witte1, Mansur Duran1, Hubert Schelzig1, Alexander Oberhuber1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Isolated dissection of the superior mesenteric artery (IDSMA) remains a rare diagnosis. However, new diagnostic means such as computed tomography makes it possible to detect even asymptomatic patients. If patients present symptomatic on admission, the risk of bowel infarction makes immediate therapy necessary. Today, endovascular techniques are often successfully used; however, open surgery remains important for special indications. In this paper, we present two cases with IDSMA and show why open surgical repair is still important in current treatment concepts.Entities:
Keywords: Aorta; Bowel infarction; Dissection; Open surgery; Superior mesenteric artery
Year: 2014 PMID: 25140196 PMCID: PMC4137619 DOI: 10.1186/1749-7922-9-47
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Emerg Surg ISSN: 1749-7922 Impact factor: 5.469
Figure 1Representative CT scan findings. A: shown is the entry of the dissection at the proximal SMA. An abnormal origin of the right hepatic artery from the proximal SMA can be seen as an anatomical variant. B: An embolism of a distal branch of the SMA is shown. C: Reconstruction of the CT scan after admission. Almost complete decline of intestinal perfusion of the right abdominal side could be observed. D: findings of the control CT scan 5 days after operation. No residual membrane could be observed, normal perfusion of the SMA and the right hepatic artery.
Figure 2Representative CT scan findings. A: Dissection entry in the SMA at the typical location after passing behind the neck of the pancreas and the splenic vein. B: total occlusion of a branch of the SMA distal to the dissection entry. C: findings of the CT control 1 day after operation are shown. No residual membrane could be observed, normal perfusion of the SMA and the obstructed branch.
Summary of small case series on patients with IDSMA
| 2014 | Kim HK et al. [ | 27 | 27 | - | - |
| 2014 | Ahn HY et al. [ | 13 | 12 | 1 | 0 |
| 2014 | Li DL et al. [ | 42 | 24 | 7 | 11 |
| 2013 | Dong Z et al. [ | 14 | 4 | 1 | 9 |
| 2013 | Jia ZZ et al. [ | 17 | 14 | 0 | 3 |
| 2013 | Li N et al. [ | 24 | 0 | 0 | 24 |
| 2013 | Luan JY et al. [ | 18 | 7 | 0 | 11 |
| 2013 | Choi JY et al. [ | 12 | 10 | 0 | 2 |
| 2012 | Pang P [ | 12 | 3 | 0 | 9 |
| 2012 | Zhang X [ | 10 | 6 | 2 | 2 |
| 2011 | Min SI et al. [ | 14 | 7 | 1 | 6 |
| 2011 | Park YJ et al. [ | 58 | 53 | 4 | 1 |
| 2011 | Cho BS [ | 30 | 23 | 1 | 6 |
| 2009 | Yun WS [ | 32 | 28 | 3 | 1 |
| Sum | 323 | 218 | 20 | 85 |
The investigation period was from January 1, 2009 to June 1, 2014. Cases are subdivided due to treatment strategies.