Clinical Feature of Iatrogenic Vascular Injury.
- Author:
Su Jin KIM
1
;
Tae Seung LEE
Author Information
1. Department of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine Seoul, Korea. tslee@snubh.org
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Vascular injury;
Iatrogenic injury
- MeSH:
Aneurysm, False;
Angiography;
Angioplasty;
Arteriovenous Fistula;
Demography;
Extremities;
Female;
Hematoma;
Humans;
Ligation;
Male;
Medical Records;
Porphyrins;
Prognosis;
Referral and Consultation;
Shock, Hemorrhagic;
Specialization;
Thrombosis;
Transplants;
Vascular System Injuries
- From:Journal of the Korean Society of Traumatology
2008;21(2):128-135
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: As the care of surgical patients becomes increasingly complex and catheter-based techniques are more frequently applied, the pattern of iatrogenic vascular injuries may be increasing. Major vascular injuries can jeopardize a patient's life or limb survival. The purpose of this study was to examine the current etiology and prognosis for iatrogenic vascular injuries. METHODS: We reviewed medical records of 29 cases of iatrogenic vascular injury that were treated Seoul National University Bundang Hospital between October 2003 and October 2008. We studied clinical variables including demographics, cause of injury, clinical presentations, management and prognosis. RESULTS: The mean age was 60.8 years (range: 25-86), and the male to female ratio was 1.9 : 1. The causes of injuries were operation related complication in 18 cases (62.1%), endovascular intervention and diagnostic angiography in 11 cases (37.9%). The types of vascular injury were partial severance in 14 cases, pseudoaneurysm in 8, arteriovenous fistula (AVF) in 3, thrombosis in 2, complete severance in 2. Especially, device related complication including percutaneous closing device were occurred in 9 and the others came from inadvertent physician's procedure. Primary repair were done in 12 cases, end-to-end anastomosis in 5, interposition graft in 4, ligation in 2, patch angioplasty in 1, peudoaneurysm excision and arteriorrhaphy in 1, hematoma evacuation in 1, and endovascular repair in 3. There were 2 cases of mortality, one of them due to hemorrhagic shock and the other due to septic shock. CONCLUSION: Proper selection of treatment modalities should be important to have better outcome according to the type of injury as well as anatomical location. Each physician should be familiar to new device as well as patient's topographical feature. Immediate referral to vascular specialist is also essential to reduce morbidity.
