Hybrid Repair versus Conventional Open Repair Approaches for Aortic Arch Disease: a Comprehensive Review
| Autor: | Hernani de Paiva Gadelha Júnior, Tiago Santos Ribeiro, Magaly Arrais dos Santos |
|---|---|
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Rok vydání: | 2021 |
| Předmět: |
Aortic arch
medicine.medical_specialty RD1-811 Conventional surgery MEDLINE Aorta Thoracic Review Article Disease 030204 cardiovascular system & hematology Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation 03 medical and health sciences Postoperative Complications 0302 clinical medicine medicine.artery medicine Humans Cardiovascular Surgical Procedure Diseases of the circulatory (Cardiovascular) system Postoperative Period Retrospective Studies Surgical team business.industry General surgery Cardiovascular Surgical Procedures Endovascular Procedures General Medicine Treatment Outcome Aortic Thoracic RC666-701 Inclusion and exclusion criteria Open repair Surgery Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine business Follow-Up Studies |
| Zdroj: | Brazilian Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery v.36 n.2 2021 Brazilian Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery Sociedade Brasileira de Cirurgia Cardiovascular (SBCCV) instacron:SBCCV Brazilian Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery, Issue: ahead, Published: 28 APR 2021 Brazilian Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery, Volume: 36, Issue: 2, Pages: 244-252, Published: 10 MAY 2021 |
| Popis: | Objective: To investigate whether hybrid repair has supremacy over conventional open repair in aortic arch diseases. Methods: A comprehensive search was undertaken in two major databases (PubMed and MEDLINE) to identify all studies comparing the two surgical techniques in five years, up to December 2018, that met the established criteria in this study. The search returned 310 papers, and 305 were selected after removing duplicates. The abstracts of the remaining articles were assessed, resulting in 15 studies that went to full-text analysis. After application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 8 papers remained for the final revision. Results: Eight studies met the criteria, with the inclusion of 1,837 patients. From a short-term perspective, hybrid repair and conventional open repair had similar outcomes in terms of postoperative mortality and acute neurological events. Hybrid repair was associated with less respiratory complications and risk of new intervention, as well as reduced hospital length of stay. Conventional open repair showed better mid- and long-term outcomes. Conclusion: Hybrid repair should be used in selected patients, with a high risk or very high-risk profile for conventional surgery. Finally, since most of the current data were obtained from limited to large samples, with narrow follow-up and had great heterogeneity, the best approach to the aortic arch is still variable. Therefore, the decision of the approach should be individualized and evaluated by the whole Heart Team, considering the expertise of the surgical team. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|