Trial of new vascular clips for aortic anastomosis in a canine model

Experimental Devices Versus Hand-Sewn Anastomosis of the Aorta: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

To minimize complications associated with the construction of the hand-sewn aortic anastomosis, alternative experimental methods have been pursued. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of experimental anastomotic devices in relation to time and point of rupture of the anastomosis in comparison to the conventional technique.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An electronic search was performed using MEDLINE, Scopus, Science Direct, and Cochrane Library databases by two independent authors. Our exclusion criteria referred to studies reporting results solely from end-to-side anastomosis, results on vessels other than the aorta, studies that did not involve animal experiments, and non-English publications. The last search date was January 1, 2020.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included 22 studies with 34 anastomosis samples and a total of 316 animals. The pooled mean automated anastomosis time was 10.38 min, and the mean point of rupture was 32.7 N. In the subgroup analysis of automated anastomosis time by device category, the anastomotic stenting technique reported significantly lower anastomosis time but also showed significantly lower point of rupture. Comparing the efficacy of experimental devices and the hand-sewn technique, our pooled analysis showed that automated devices significantly decrease the time needed to perform the anastomosis (weighted mean difference -7.24 min). On the other hand, the automated anastomosis is also associated with decreased tensile strength (weighted mean difference -20.68 N).

CONCLUSIONS

Although experimental devices seem to offer a faster anastomosis, they lack endurance when compared with the hand-sewn technique. Further research is needed for the development of an "ideal" anastomotic technique.

Α systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of aortic anastomotic devices

OBJECTIVE

One of the factors contributing to complications related to open repair of the aorta is the construction of a hand-sewn anastomosis. Aortic anastomotic devices (AADs), such as the intraluminal ringed graft (IRG), and the anastomotic stenting technique have been developed to perform a sutureless and less complicated anastomosis. This study performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature reporting clinical use of AADs and aimed to assess, primarily, the effect of each device on 30-day overall and operation-related mortality and aortic cross-clamping time and, secondarily, the rate of successful two-sided application of the IRG device and the operation-related morbidity for each device.

METHODS

An electronic search was performed using MEDLINE, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane Library by two independent authors. Our exclusion criteria included studies incorporating fewer than three patients and studies reporting results solely from animals or in vitro testing, results solely from end-to-side anastomosis, and results solely from endarterectomy procedures. The last search date was February 1, 2018.

RESULTS

A total of 41 studies were identified that reported outcomes for the use of three different device types: IRG, anastomotic stenting technique, and surgical staplers. The last two types were classified together as the non-IRG group. The meta-analysis included 27 studies with 50 cohorts incorporating 1260 patients. The median age of the incorporated patients was 61.4 years (range, 51-73 years), and 68.9% were male. The operations were performed for the treatment of acute aortic dissection in 82.3%. The pooled overall 30-day mortality rate varied by device type; IRG devices had a mean rate of all-cause mortality of 9.71%, whereas non-IRG devices were associated with a significantly (I² = 15.78%; P for Cochrane Q test < .19) lower rate of death (1.47%). The pooled mean aortic cross-clamping time was 35.83 minutes. Metaregression showed that the performance of two-sided anastomosis with the IRG device significantly decreased the aortic cross-clamping time. However, a successful two-sided ringed anastomosis was performed in approximately half of the cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Taking into account that the majority of operations were performed for the treatment of acute aortic dissection, AADs had a relatively low rate of 30-day mortality. Despite the observed heterogeneity in study protocols and the small sample size in the non-IRG group, the non-IRG group presented with the lowest 30-day mortality rate. Specific device-related complications between the different device types need further investigation.