Modified Eversion Carotid Endarterectomy: A 14-Year Experience in a Tertiary Teaching University Hospital in Brazil (South America)

Contemporary open surgical approaches for the management of carotid stenosis: a comprehensive review

This study aims to provide an overview on contemporary open surgical approaches for the management of carotid artery stenosis. A comprehensive literature search was performed to identify and categorize open surgery intervention techniques for the management of carotid artery stenosis, focusing on the benefits and drawbacks of each technique. Five surgical techniques for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) have been described: CEA with primary closure, CEA with patch closure, CEA by eversion technique, CEA by modified eversion technique and CEA by partial eversion. Evidence has reported significantly higher rates of perioperative complications after CEA with primary closure, including 30-days stroke rate and late restenosis. Although more recent techniques have been reported to provide superior outcomes, electing the best surgical technique is still a matter of debate. Also, CEA using a mini-skin incision has been associated to lower risk of cranial/cervical nerve injury and shorter length of hospital stay. The selection of the surgical intervention should be tailored and have into consideration individual patient characteristics, clinical considerations, surgeon preference and surgical team expertise. Further large-scale randomized clinical trials are needed to support more robust decisions on the choice of contemporary open surgical approaches to manage carotid stenosis.

Partial Eversion Carotid Endarterectomy versus Conventional Techniques for Significant Carotid Stenosis

BACKGROUND

To compare the outcomes of patients who were submitted to partial carotid endarterectomy (P-CEA) to those of patients who underwent standard conventional CEA with patch closure (C-CEA) and eversion CEA (E-CEA) for a significant carotid stenosis.

METHODS

Data of patients who consecutively underwent CEA from January 2014 to December 2018 for a significant carotid stenosis were retrospectively collected. Primary outcomes included mortality and the occurrence of neurologic and cardiologic complications, both at 30 days and during follow-up. Secondary outcomes included the occurrence of perioperative local complications (i.e. cranial nerve injuries, hematomas) and restenosis during follow-up. P values < 0.5 were considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Three-hundred twenty-seven patients (241 males, 74%) underwent CEA for carotid stenosis (28.6% symptomatic). P-CEA was performed in 202 patients (61.8%), while C-CEA and E-CEA were performed in 103 and 22 cases respectively. At 30 days, neurologic complications were not significantly different among the 3 groups (2.8% in the group of C-CEA, 2.4% after P-CEA and 0% in E-CEA patients, P = 0.81), neither during follow-up. Perioperative local complications also were not significantly different among the 3 groups (P = 0.16).

CONCLUSIONS

P-CEA had similar outcomes if compared to C-CEA and to E-CEA in terms of perioperative mortality, occurrence of neurologic and cardiologic complications, and occurrence of local complications. Also, in the long-term, P-CEA, C-CEA, and E-CEA were burdened by similar rates of mortality, neurologic, and cardiologic complications and restenosis.

Frequency and Significance of Maneuvers to Dissect the Distal Internal Carotid Artery During Carotid Endarterectomy

OBJECTIVES

To describe the frequency, factors associated with, and significance of surgical dissection maneuvers of the distal internal carotid artery (ICA) during carotid endarterectomy (CEA).

METHODS

In this retrospective analysis of prospectively collected information in patients undergoing CEA, we recorded information on demographics, risk factors and comorbidities, dissection maneuvers of the distal ICA, other operative variables and neurological outcome measures.

RESULTS

During the period July 2008 and February 2020 inclusive, 218 consecutive patients (180 males, median age 69.5 years) underwent 240 CEAs. In 117 (48.8%) of them, CEA was performed for a symptomatic stenosis. Dissection maneuvers of the distal ICA were required in 77 cases (32.1%), including division and ligation of the sternocleidomastoid vessels in 66 cases (27.5%), mobilization of the XII cranial nerve in 69 cases (28.7%, with concomitant transection of the superior root of the ansa cervicalis in 11 cases, 4.6%) and division of the posterior belly of the digastric muscle in 8 cases (3.3%). Styloid osteotomy was not required in any case. Smoking was the single predictive factor associated with the use of an adjunctive dissection maneuver (odds ratio 2.23, p = 0.009). The use of a patch was more common in smokers (16% vs 7.1% in non-smokers, odds ratio 2.48, p = 0.05). Perioperative stroke and/or death rate was 0%, not allowing testing for associations with maneuver performance. Two patients (0.8%) developed a transient ischemic attack and 4 patients (1.7%) a cranial nerve injury (CNI), including 2 patients with recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy, diagnosed on routine laryngoscopy during planning of a contralateral CEA. There was no association between CNI and dissection of the distal ICA using an operative adjunct (p = 0.60).

CONCLUSIONS

Several surgical maneuvers are often required to accomplish dissection of the distal ICA beyond the point of atherosclerotic disease. When dictated by operative findings, such maneuvers are deemed safe.

Carotid Endarterectomy with Modified Eversion Technique: Results of a Single Center

BACKGROUND

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has a wide range of approaches based on personal expertise and preference. We evaluated our outcome with CEA with modified eversion technique (meCEA) under local anesthesia and whether the surgeon's experience could influence it.

METHODS

at our Institution, 837 patients underwent CEA across 8 years. Although the surgical technique was standardized, 2 groups were considered further: meCEA performed by a single Senior Operator (Group A) and meCEA performed by 4 young Consultants (Group B).

RESULTS

A selective shunting policy was needed in 5.1%, together with general anesthesia. Overall operative time was 63.9 ± 15.1 minutes (61.4 ± 12.5 and 66 ± 16.9 minutes in Group A and Group B respectively; P < 0.001) and cross-clamp time 19.3 ± 2.9 minutes (19.0 ± 3.2 vs. 19.5 ± 2.8, P = 0.009). At 30 days, 0.7% TIA and 0.8% strokes were recorded. No differences (p = N.S.) between the 2 study groups in terms of postoperative neurological complications, with postoperative ipsilateral strokes always < 1%. At a median imaging follow-up of 22.5 months, the overall percentage of restenosis was 3.7%, with no difference between the 2 groups (P = 0.954). Twenty-two patients (2.6%) underwent reintervention for significant restenosis, and none of them had an ipsilateral stroke or TIA. Freedom from reintervention for restenosis at 24 months was 97.9% in Group A and 95.9% in Group B, with no between-group difference (P = 0.14). At the median survival follow-up of 37 months, the overall survival rate at 24 months was 97.9%in Group A, and 97.9% in Group B, with no between-group difference (P = 0.070).

CONCLUSIONS

In our experience, CEA with a modified technique is safe and achieves comparable outcomes to those of other established techniques. The reported short cross-clamp time, also in less experienced hands, is an additional strength.