Literature DB >> 9659889

Role of surgical techniques and operative findings in cranial and cervical nerve injuries during carotid endarterectomy.

S Zannetti1, B Parente, P De Rango, G Giordano, G Serafini, M Rossetti, P Cao.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To establish the incidence of cranial and cervical nerve injuries during CEA and their relationship to different surgical techniques and operative findings.
DESIGN: A prospective study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From January 1994 to April 1995, 187 consecutive patients undergoing 190 CEAs were evaluated. Pre- and postoperative cranial and cervical nerve assessments were carried out by a single otolaryngologist, blinded to the operative technique and findings. Deficits lasting more than 12 months were defined as permanent. Logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate the influence of surgical technique, type of anaesthesia, neck haematoma, and plaque extension on the onset of nerve injuries.
RESULTS: Postoperatively, nerve lesions were identified in 51 CEAs (27%) and non-neurological injuries (hemilaryngeal ecchymosis or oedema) causing postoperative dysphonia were present in 80 CEAs (42%). All non-neurological injuries were transient and 98% disappeared within 1 month of surgery. Thirteen (7%) nerve lesions were permanent, but none were disabling. Vagus nerve lesions were significantly associated with long (> 2 cm) carotid plaque (OR = 3.5; CI 1.09-12.37; p = 0.03). Cervical branch lesions were associated with the presence of neck haematoma (OR = 1.9; CI 0.7-4.7; p = 0.05). The incidence of single cranial nerve injuries was higher in patch (OR = 2.7) and eversion (OR = 1.9) procedures than in primary closure. Multiple deficits (2 or more) were most frequent in eversion CEAs (OR = 2.8) and in cases complicated by neck haematoma (OR = 3.8).
CONCLUSIONS: Cranial and cervical nerve lesions during CEA are common. However, our data showed that the majority of local complications are related to transient hemilaryngeal ecchymosis or oedema and, when permanent, are neither clinically relevant nor disabling at 1 year of follow up. Carotid plaque extension and neck haematoma appear to increase the incidence of cranial and cervical nerve lesions during CEA.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9659889     DOI: 10.1016/s1078-5884(98)80114-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg        ISSN: 1078-5884            Impact factor:   7.069


  6 in total

1.  The significance of the pharyngeal veins during carotid endarterectomy: description of an anatomical triangle.

Authors:  J Aldoori; V Mahadevan; M Aldoori
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2017-11-28       Impact factor: 1.891

2.  Clinical relevance of cranial nerve injury following carotid endarterectomy.

Authors:  M Fokkema; G J de Borst; B W Nolan; J Indes; D B Buck; R C Lo; F L Moll; M L Schermerhorn
Journal:  Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg       Date:  2013-10-01       Impact factor: 7.069

3.  Prospective analysis of cerebral infarction after carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery stent placement by using diffusion-weighted imaging.

Authors:  Hong Gee Roh; Hong Sik Byun; Jae Wook Ryoo; Dong Gyu Na; Won-Jin Moon; Byung Boong Lee; Dong-Ik Kim
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 3.825

4.  Incidence, outcomes, and effect on quality of life of cranial nerve injury in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial.

Authors:  Robert J Hye; Ariane Mackey; Michael D Hill; Jenifer H Voeks; David J Cohen; Kaijun Wang; MeeLee Tom; Thomas G Brott
Journal:  J Vasc Surg       Date:  2015-03-12       Impact factor: 4.268

5.  Outcomes after Transverse-Incision 'Mini' Carotid Endarterectomy and Patch-Plasty.

Authors:  Sidhartha Sinha; Matthew Fok; Aaron Goh; Vijay M Gadhvi
Journal:  Vasc Specialist Int       Date:  2019-09-30

6.  Second asymptomatic carotid surgery trial (ACST-2): a randomised comparison of carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy.

Authors:  Alison Halliday; Richard Bulbulia; Leo H Bonati; Johanna Chester; Andrea Cradduck-Bamford; Richard Peto; Hongchao Pan
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2021-08-29       Impact factor: 79.321

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.