Major Vascular Injury During Nonvascular Surgeries

The substantial burden of iatrogenic vascular injury on the vascular surgery workforce at an academic medical center

OBJECTIVE

Vascular surgeons are often called upon to provide emergent surgical assistance to other specialties for iatrogenic complications, both intraoperatively and in the inpatient setting. The management of iatrogenic vascular injury remains a critical role of the vascular surgeon, especially in the context of the increasing adoption of percutaneous procedures by other specialties. This study aims to characterize consultation timing, management, and outcomes for iatrogenic vascular injuries.

METHODS

This study identified patients for whom vascular surgery was consulted for iatrogenic vascular complications from February 1, 2022, to May 12, 2023. Patient information, including demographic information, injury details, and details of any operative intervention, was retrospectively collected from February 1, 2022, to October 13, 2022, and prospectively collected for the remainder of the study period. Analyses were performed with R (version 2022.02.03).

RESULTS

There were 87 patients with consultations related to iatrogenic vascular injury. Of these, 42 (46%) were female and the mean age was 59 years (±18 years). The most common consulting services were cardiology (32%), cardiothoracic surgery (26%), general surgery (8%), and neurointerventional radiology (10%). Reasons for consultation included hemorrhage (36%), limb ischemia (36%), and treatment of pseudoaneurysm (23%). A total of 24% of consults were intraoperative, 20% of consults related to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation cannulation, and 16% of consults related to ventricular assist devices including left ventricular assist device and intra-aortic balloon pump. The majority of these consult requests (60%) occurred during evening and night hours (5 PM to 7 AM). Emergent intervention was required in 62% of cases and consisted of primary open surgical repair of arterial injury (54%), endovascular intervention (21%), and open thromboembolectomy (15%). Overall, in-hospital mortality for the patient cohort was 20% and the reintervention rate was 23%, reflecting the underlying complexity of the illness and nature of the vascular injury in this patient group.

CONCLUSIONS

Vascular surgeons play an essential role in managing emergent life-threatening hemorrhagic and ischemic iatrogenic vascular complications in the hospitalized setting. The complications require immediate bedside or intraoperative consult and often emergent open surgical or endovascular intervention. Furthermore, many of these require urgent management in the evening or overnight hours, and therefore the high frequency of these events represents a potential significant resource utilization and workforce issue to the vascular surgery workforce.

Iatrogenic Vascular Injuries in Resource-Limited Setting: A 4-Year Experience Monocentric Retrospective Study

Background

Iatrogenic vascular injuries (IVIs) due to diagnostic and therapeutic interventions are known but rare or probably under-reported. We present our four-year findings on patients with IVIs after catheterization or surgery who underwent vascular surgical repairs in a resource-limited setting.

Methods

A retrospective case series study between Jun 2018 and Sep 2022 of 35 patients diagnosed with IVIs and treated surgically at our hospital was included. The data on IVIs including patient characteristics, causes and type of injury, treatment, and outcomes were collected and analyzed.

Results

The mean age was 37.12± 17.0 years, and most patients (65.7%) were male. Of the 35 IVIs, 21 were caused by percutaneous procedures, while 14 occurred intraoperatively and affected various arteries and veins. The main injured vessels were the femoral artery (20%) and direct blood vessel puncture made by non-qualified specialists (42.9%) during dialysis cannulation was the main cause. The intraoperative IVI affected the inferior vena cava in three patients, the aorta in two patients, the external iliac artery in four, the tibial and popliteal arteries in four, and the internal carotid artery in one. The following types of repairs were recorded: direct suture of the vessel with or without endarterectomy (71.4%), synthetic patch placement (25.7%), ligation (8.6%), bypass or interposition graft (14.3%), and thromboembolectomy (5.7%). Vascular repair was successful in 32 (91.4%) patients while three patients (8.6%) were expired. Complications occurred in 7 (20%) patients, of which superficial wound infections were the common complication (11.6%) and were treated with proper antibiotic therapy.

Conclusion

Prompt identification of IVIs, as well as proper triage for future treatment, can enhance patient outcomes. Our data showed that non-qualified specialists seem to be responsible for the majority of IVIs. For that, we emphasize the importance of performing vascular procedures by a qualified specialist with adequate training.

Five-year survival after retroperitoneal oncologic resection with and without vascular surgeon intervention

OBJECTIVES

Retroperitoneal tumor resection commonly disturbs major vessels; therefore, surgical teams can recruit vascular surgeons to prevent injuries and improve the prognosis of oncologic patients. The objective of the present study is to establish long-term survival after retroperitoneal tumor resection surgery with an emphasis on the potential impact of preventing or repairing major vessel injuries when tumors are adjacent to the aorta or vena cava.

METHODS

Retrospective case series including all cases of surgical removal of retroperitoneal tumors between 2007 and 2020 in a highly specialized hospital in Mexico City. Long-term survival was defined as 5 years after surgical intervention. Descriptive statistics, group-comparison tests, and regression analysis were performed using Stata 16.

RESULTS

From a total of 70 cases, vascular injury occurred in 30 (42.8%) and the vascular surgeon intervened in 19 (27.1%) of them, 4 (21%) were performed by a vascular surgeon with planned intervention, and in 9 (47.3%) cases the vascular surgeon was called to join the surgery due to emergency. Intraoperative bleeding was 2-fold greater in the group with an emergent participation of vascular surgery in contrast with the planned intervention group (4, 235 mL vs 2, 035 mL, p = 0.04). The regression model revealed a significant association between the intervention of a vascular surgeon and long-term survival (OR 59.3, p = 0.03) after adjusting for sociodemographic and characteristics of oncologic nature.

CONCLUSIONS

Planned intervention of vascular surgeons in retroperitoneal tumor resection may have a positive impact not only in trans-operatory period, but also on long-term survival.

Intraoperative consultation of vascular surgeons is increasing at a major American trauma center

OBJECTIVE

Vascular surgeons are often called to aid other surgical specialties for complex exposure, hemorrhage control, or revascularization. The evolving role of the vascular surgeon in the management of intraoperative emergencies involving trauma patients remains undefined. The primary aims of this study included determining the prevalence of intraoperative vascular consultation in trauma, describing how these interactions have changed over time, and characterizing the outcomes achieved by vascular surgeons in these settings. We hypothesized that growing endovascular capabilities of vascular surgeons have resulted in an increased involvement of vascular surgery faculty in the management of the trauma patient over time.

METHODS

A retrospective review of all operative cases at a single level I trauma center where a vascular surgeon was involved, but not listed as the primary surgeon, between 2002 and 2017 was performed. Cases were abstracted using Horizon Surgical Manager, a documentation system used in our operating room to track staff present, the type of case, and use. All elective cases were excluded.

RESULTS

Of the 256 patients initially identified, 22 were excluded owing to the elective or joint nature of the procedure, leaving 234 emergent operative vascular consultations. Over the 15-year study period, a 529% increase in the number of vascular surgery consultations was seen, with 65% (n = 152) being intraoperative consultations requiring an immediate response. Trauma surgery (n = 103 [44%]) and orthopedic surgery (n = 94 [40%]) were the most common consulting specialties, with both demonstrating a trend of increasing consultations over time (general surgery, 1400%; orthopedic surgery, 220%). Indications for consultation were extremity malperfusion, hemorrhage, and concern for arterial injury. The average operative time for the vascular component of the procedures was 2.4 hours. Of patients presenting with ischemia, revascularization was successful in 94% (n = 116). Hemorrhage was controlled in 99% (n = 122). In-hospital mortality was relatively low at 7% (n = 17). Overall, despite the increase in intraoperative vascular consultations over time, a concomitant increase in the proportion of procedures done using endovascular techniques was not seen.

CONCLUSIONS

Vascular surgeons are essential team members at a level I trauma center. Vascular consultation in this setting is often unplanned and often requires immediate intervention. The number of intraoperative vascular consultations is increasing and cannot be attributed solely to an increase in endovascular hemorrhage control, and instead may reflect the declining experience of trauma surgeons with vascular trauma. When consulted, vascular surgeons are effective in quickly gaining control of the situation to provide exposure, hemorrhage control, or revascularization.

A Multidisciplinary Approach to Oncological Resections with Vascular Surgeons Improves Patient Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

Oncological resections have become more radical in pursuit of disease free margins. Consequently, vascular structures may be injured inadvertently or purposely resected, with or without subsequent reconstruction. Thus, vascular surgeons have an increasing role in oncological surgery. The present authors sought to review their experience and examine the effect of timing of referral to a Vascular Surgeon (VS) on patient and surgical outcomes following tumour resection.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted of a prospectively maintained database at a public hospital network in Adelaide, Australia. All cases of collaboration between a VS and other surgeons for resection of cancer or non-malignant tumour were included. Medical records and operative, pathological, and transfusion data were reviewed, with particular attention to referring team, timing of VS referral (pre- or intra-operative), and the operative role of the VS.

RESULTS

Seventy-two cases were identified from January 2004 to June 2018. The most common collaborators were General Surgery and Urology. Of the cases, 86% were elective and 71% were referred to the VS pre-operatively. Pre-operative referral was associated with a predominant VS role of dissection and exposure. Pre-operative referral was associated with lower odds of vessel repair and reconstruction compared with intra-operative referral (adjusted OR = 0.20; 95% CI 0.04-0.93; p = .040) and a lower incidence of positive surgical margins (35% vs. 80%, p = .028). The rate of blood product units required was lower among pre-operative referrals relative to intra-operative referrals, but the effect of timing was not significant after adjustment for potential confounders (IRR = 0.80, 95% CI 0.26-2.44; p = .70).

CONCLUSION

Pre-operative planned involvement of vascular surgery in oncological operations can improve surgical outcomes, with additional expected benefits for surgical training and cross specialty collaboration.

Emergency intraoperative vascular surgery consultations at a tertiary academic center

OBJECTIVE

Vascular surgeons are frequently called on to provide emergency assistance to surgical colleagues. Whereas previous studies have included elective preoperative vascular consultations, we sought to characterize the breadth of assistance provided during unplanned intraoperative consultations at a single tertiary academic center.

METHODS

We queried our institutional billing department during a 15-year period and reviewed the records (January 1, 2002-December 31, 2016) and identified unanticipated unplanned vascular surgery intraoperative consultations from all surgical services. Patients' demographics and comorbidities were recorded along with the consulting services, type of index operation, reasons for vascular consultation, regions of anatomic interventions, type of vascular interventions performed, and outcomes achieved.

RESULTS

There were 419 emergency intraoperative consultations identified. Patients were 51% male, with an average age of 57 years and body mass index of 28.3 kg/m². The most frequently consulting subspecialties included surgical oncology (n = 139 [33.2%]), cardiac surgery (n = 82 [19.6%]), and orthopedics (n = 44 [10.5%]). Index cases were elective/nonurgent (n = 324 [77.3%]), urgent (n = 27 [6.4%]), and emergent (n = 68 [16.2%]), with a majority involving tumor resection (n = 240 [57.3%]). The primary reasons for vascular consultation were revascularization (n = 213 [50.8%]), control of bleeding (n = 132 [31.5%]), assistance with dissection or exposure (n = 46 [11%]), embolic protection (n = 24 [5.7%]), and other (n = 4 [1.1%]). The primary blood vessel and anatomic field of intervention were categorized. Most cases (n = 264 [63%]) included preservation of blood flow, including primary arterial repair (n = 181 [43.2%]), patch angioplasty (n = 83 [19.8%]), bypass (n = 63 [15%]), and thrombectomy (n = 38 [9.1%]). Postoperative mean length of stay was 15 days, with 30-day and 1-year mortality of 7.2% and 26.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

Vascular surgeons are called on to provide unplanned open surgical consultations for a wide variety of specialties over wide-ranging anatomic regions, employing a variety of skills and techniques. This study testifies to the essential services supplied to hospitals and our surgical colleagues along with the broad skills and training necessary for modern vascular surgeons.

Splenomesenteric bypass as revascularisation technique after iatrogenic injury of the superior mesenteric artery during radical nephrectomy: A case report

•

Iatrogenic injury of the superior mesenteric artery is rare.

•

This injury imparts a high risk of mortality due to visceral ischemia and death.

•

An anastomosis to the splenic artery may be an easier solution than an aorto-mesenteric bypass.

Introduction

Iatrogenic vascular injuries during radical nephrectomy are rarely reported. In the case of an injury of the superior mesenteric artery, the consequences for the patient are potentially catastrophic. It occurs more frequently in patients with large renal tumors, due to the presence of bulky perihilar adenopathies, or in cases of pyelonephritis. In most cases, the inadvertent injury of the artery occurs due to the difficulty in distinguishing it from the left renal artery.

Case

69-year-old male, with a malignant neoplasm of the left kidney with the involvement of the tail of the pancreas, tumor thrombus in the left renal vein and multiple left para-aortic adenopathies, whose histological examination revealed to be a renal sarcomatoid carcinoma pT4N1M0G3. A radical nephrectomy was performed with caudal splenopancreatectomy and left paraaortic lymphadenectomy, with an iatrogenic injury of the superior mesenteric artery at its origin. A terminoterminal anastomosis was performed from the proximal stump of the splenic artery. The postoperative period went uneventfully. Control imaging in the follow-up showed permeability of the celiac trunk and the superior mesenteric artery.

Conclusions

Intra-operative superior mesenteric artery injury should be promptly identified and repaired to prevent gut ischemia and all its dire consequences. There are different repair options, and the technique should be chosen according to the degree of injury. The splenomesenteric bypass has numerous advantages.

Intraoperative Vascular Surgical Consultation during Non-Vascular Surgeries in Tertiary Centers by Vascular Surgeon

Purpose

There are many types of intraoperative consultations by vascular surgeons during non-vascular surgery. Therefore, we examined the current state of intraoperative consultations during non-vascular surgery in a single center.

Materials and Methods

From January 2014 to December 2015, we reviewed records of 40 patients (0.3%) who received an intraoperative consultation from a vascular surgeon for 10,734 non-vascular surgeries in Inha University Hospital. We examined patient characteristics, operative details, and clinical results.

Results

There were 40 intraoperative vascular surgical consultations relating to bleeding (n=14, 35.0%), dissection from the vessel (n=13, 32.5%), arterial occlusion (n=10, 25.0%), and retroperitoneal approach (n=3, 7.5%). The locations of surgery were lower extremity (n=10, 25.0%), kidney (n=8, 20.0%), spine (n=6, 15.0%), pelvis (n=6, 15.0%), head and neck (n=4, 10.0%), abdomen (n=4, 10.0%), and upper extremity (n=2, 5.0%). The methods of surgery included primary closure or ligation (n=17, 42.5%), end-to-end anastomosis (n=12, 30.0%), bypass (n=10, 25.0%), thrombectomy (n=4, 10.0%), retroperitoneal approach (n=3, 7.5%), and embolization (n=2, 5.0%). Postoperative treatment was performed in the intensive care unit for 13 patients (32.5%), while 3 patients (7.5%) died following surgery.

Conclusion

Intraoperative consultation by vascular surgeons during non-vascular surgery occurred in approximately 0.3% of non-vascular surgeries. The region undergoing operation and type of surgery were variable. Therefore, it is necessary for vascular surgeons to have a comprehensive knowledge of vascular anatomy and to make rapid surgical decisions.