Complex lesions of the thoracic aorta are traditionally treated in 2 surgical steps with the elephant trunk technique. A relatively new approach is the frozen elephant trunk (FET) technique, which potentially allows combined lesions of the thoracic aorta to be treated in a 1-stage procedure combining endovascular treatment with conventional surgery using a hybrid prosthesis. These are very complex and time-consuming operations, and good results can be obtained only if appropriate strategies for myocardial, cerebral, and visceral protection are adopted. However, the FET technique is associated with a non-negligible incidence of spinal cord injury, due to the extensive coverage of the descending aorta with the excessive sacrifice of intercostal arteries. The indications for the FET technique include chronic thoracic aortic dissection, acute or chronic type B dissection when endovascular treatment is contraindicated, chronic aneurysm of the thoracic aorta, and chronic aneurysm of the distal arch. The FET technique is also indicated in acute type A aortic dissection, especially when the tear is localized in the aortic arch; in cases of distal malperfusion; and in young patients. In light of the great interest in the FET technique, the Vascular Domain of the European Association for cardio-thoracic Surgery published a position paper reporting the current knowledge and the state of the art of the FET technique. Herein, we describe the surgical techniques involved in the FET technique and we report our experience with the FET technique for the treatment of complex aortic disease of the thoracic aorta.
Aneurysm ; Aorta, Thoracic ; Aortic Diseases ; Arteries ; Elephants* ; Humans ; Incidence ; Prostheses and Implants ; Spinal Cord Injuries ; Tears

Doctors are often faced with difficult decisions and uncertainty when patients need a certain treatment. They routinely rely on the scientific literature, in addition to their knowledge, experience, and patient preferences. Clinical practice guidelines are created with the intention of facilitating decision-making. They may offer concise instructions for the diagnosis, management (medical or surgical treatments), and prevention of specific diseases or conditions. All information included in the final version are the result of a systematic review of scientific articles and an assessment of the benefits and costs of alternative care options. The final document attempts to meet the needs of most patients in most circumstances and clinicians, aware of these recommendations, should always make individualized treatment decisions. In this review, we attempted to define the intent and applicability of clinical practice guidelines, expert consensus documents, and registry studies, focusing on the management of patients with thoracic aortic disease.
Aorta ; Aortic Diseases* ; Consensus* ; Cost-Benefit Analysis ; Diagnosis ; Evidence-Based Practice ; Guidelines as Topic ; Humans ; Intention ; Patient Preference ; Registries* ; Uncertainty

Objective: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak has correlated with the disruption of screening activities and diagnostic assessments. Endometrial cancer (EC) is one of the most common gynecological malignancies and it is often detected at an early stage, because it frequently produces symptoms. Here, we aim to investigate the impact of COVID-19 outbreak on patterns of presentation and treatment of EC patients. Methods: This is a retrospective study involving 54 centers in Italy. We evaluated patterns of presentation and treatment of EC patients before (period 1: March 1, 2019 to February 29, 2020) and during (period 2: April 1, 2020 to March 31, 2021) the COVID-19 outbreak. Results: Medical records of 5,164 EC patients have been retrieved: 2,718 and 2,446 women treated in period 1 and period 2, respectively. Surgery was the mainstay of treatment in both periods (p=0.356). Nodal assessment was omitted in 689 (27.3%) and 484 (21.2%) patients treated in period 1 and 2, respectively (p<0.001). While, the prevalence of patients undergoing sentinel node mapping (with or without backup lymphadenectomy) has increased during the COVID-19 pandemic (46.7% in period 1 vs. 52.8% in period 2; p<0.001). Overall, 1,280 (50.4%) and 1,021 (44.7%) patients had no adjuvant therapy in period 1 and 2, respectively (p<0.001). Adjuvant therapy use has increased during COVID-19 pandemic (p<0.001). Conclusion Our data suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on the characteristics and patterns of care of EC patients. These findings highlight the need to implement healthcare services during the pandemic.